The second thread about Pol Pot

[milk]

"He blew up the national bank in the capital, Phnom Penh, with the currency fluttering in the street." www.thesocialistparty.org/spo/.../Kampuchea.html

"The Khmer Rouge abolished money and blew up the National Bank building in Phnom Penh." http://books.google.ru/books?id=5_d9sWUZz9MC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Pol+Pot+%22blew+up+the+national+bank%22&source=bl&ots=leqR8w6cKo&sig=Xesw6nLhNpatBvZGA-1JKh0sz-Y&hl=ru&ei=Trb4TPeYNaOP4gb996n1Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Pol%20Pot%20%22blew%20up%20the%20national%20bank %22&f=false

"John Pilger : His work as a correspondent in ... Burma and other countries where human rights were being violated ...
Many of the photographs capture the political climate of the country in question through focusing on the suffering of the individual. A Cambodian child holds bank notes to the camera, collected after the Khmer Rouge blew up the national bank - but, as Pilger explains, this is no fortune. The poor street urchin will use the paper to heat a pot of roots and leaves." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-77790265.html

The Soviet bureaucracy has accused weather conditions, CIA accused communists, Hitler has been disappointed in the German nation... This breed of people doesn't happen guilty.

You said that Pol Pot ordered the National Bank building to be blown up. It was blown up, yes, but your assertion that he ordered it to be blown up, was factually incorrect.

You also said that the Khmer Rouge ruined the economy, when in fact the economy was already ruined when they inherited it after a devastating war.

Indeed their discarding the use of money was following on from confidence in their own barter-based economy established during the collectivisation of villages and the formation of what they called cooperatives to meet wartime needs in the rural areas they controlled during the war, and from which the Khmer Republic's currency was withdrawn, its use retained with other currencies only for outside trade with Vietnamese and the like, for things the cooperatives couldn't produce.

Sketchy plans were made from as early as 1972 to reorganise the National Bank when they won the war, and introduce a new currency. Sample notes were printed in China, inspected by the Khmer Rouge leadership, who agreed on its introduction. Finished notes, printed in China, were sent down the Ho Chi Minh Trail in wooden crates and, after they won the war in 1975, a cadre named Pich Cheang (and future DK foreign diplomat) was picked as the man to reorganise the banking system. Upper-level talks after victory, however, saw these plans scrapped in 1976, and the new notes were withdrawn from circulation in one trial area.

Here is one of the notes:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/8663/note1024x442.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/640/note21024x455.jpg

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/3240/women1024x592.jpg

[ComradeMan]

You said that Pol Pot ordered the National Bank building to be blown up. It was blown up, yes, but your assertion that he ordered it to be blown up, was factually incorrect.

Who gave the order then? The Khmer Rouge blew up the bank.

Whatever their intentions--- it doesn't change what they actually did in Cambodia.

[milk]

Who gave the order then? The Khmer Rouge blew up the bank.

Nobody really knows. It was detonated by Khmer Rouge soldiers, but who ordered it ...

[ComradeMan]

Nobody really knows. It was detonated by Khmer Rouge soldiers, but who ordered it ...

A military commander takes responsibility for the actions of his troops- unless they disobey a direct order. I'm not sure the Khmer Rouge would have been bold enough to disobey orders or carry out something not in line with what the Angkor wanted.

[Dimentio]

/me starts to cry

[Dimentio]

Please Milk, if you are not a Khmer Rogue supporter, why are you compelled to fucking defend them in every thread?

Now cut all this crap about Khmer Rogue. This is Popov's thread.

[Unidos Marchemos]

Please Milk, if you are not a Khmer Rogue supporter, why are you compelled to fucking defend them in every thread?

Now cut all this crap about Khmer Rogue. This is Popov's thread.


out of curiosity, is there a rule against the Khmer Rouge on this forum?

[Dimentio]

In the best of worlds, yes

[Widerstand]

out of curiosity, is there a rule against the Khmer Rouge on this forum?

Well, lol, there's no rule saying "KHMER ROUGE = BAN" but if you go around defending Pol Pot you'll either drop it or be forced into the position of mass murder/genocide supporter, which would likely get you banned.

[Hiero]

Please Milk, if you are not a Khmer Rogue supporter, why are you compelled to fucking defend them in every thread?

Now cut all this crap about Khmer Rogue. This is Popov's thread.


He actually didn't. You and ComradeMan are just too stupid to understand thirty words.

[red cat]

Well, lol, there's no rule saying "KHMER ROUGE = BAN" but if you go around defending Pol Pot you'll either drop it or be forced into the position of mass murder/genocide supporter, which would likely get you banned.

I am a supporter of Pol Pot.

[red cat]

A military commander takes responsibility for the actions of his troops- unless they disobey a direct order. I'm not sure the Khmer Rouge would have been bold enough to disobey orders or carry out something not in line with what the Angkor wanted.

In Maoist revolutionary wars, such actions are often decided by the locals rather than the high level commanders.

[Widerstand]

I am a supporter of Pol Pot.

I've got you categorized as a Stalinite anyhow, the specific nuances of your mental labyrithism are not for me to judge.

[Dimentio]

Hiero:

If I stormed in on a thread about something unrelated, where the OP is taking the Holocaust as an example of something, and started to write "They never gassed Jews in gas chambers! That is a myth", and then claimed to not be a nazi, it would still be viewed as nazi apologism.

If I had a history of writing 35 pages on how the cruelty of the nazis has been exaggerated, people would view me as a nazi apologist, even if I claimed to not be a nazi.

[Obs]

I've got you categorized as a Stalinite anyhow, the specific nuances of your mental labyrithism are not for me to judge.
Oh, come on. Regardless what you think of either, Stalin and Pol Pot are simply not comparable.

[Widerstand]

Oh, come on. Regardless what you think of either, Stalin and Pol Pot are simply not comparable.

No, but I tolerate a lot of weird opinions from Stalinites simply because they have repeatedly proven to have them.

[red cat]

No, but I tolerate a lot of weird opinions from Stalinites simply because they have repeatedly proven to have them.

So nice of you. :wub:

I wonder why Stalinites having such weird opinions make up the vast majority of those who are taking revolutionary action against capitalism.

[Dimentio]

Don't write anything yet. I am splitting this thread as of teh now.

[Bud Struggle]

Don't write anything yet. I am splitting this thread as of teh now.

If the Koch Brothers weren't already funding her--I'd pay for her myself. :D

[Widerstand]

I wonder why Stalinites having such weird opinions make up the vast majority of those who are taking revolutionary action against capitalism.

Because you just made that up.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Trying to clarify the role played by imperialist war in the destruction of Cambodia is comparable to holocaust denial?

ZOMG HISTORICAL ACCURACY = FASCISM!!11

[Widerstand]

Trying to clarify the role played by imperialist war in the destruction of Cambodia is comparable to holocaust denial?


Where did anyone say that?

[Dimentio]

Trying to clarify the role played by imperialist war in the destruction of Cambodia is comparable to holocaust denial?

ZOMG HISTORICAL ACCURACY = FASCISM!!11

It is not that Milk is pointing out what most of us already know, that Cambodia was fucked up before 1975 as well due to American bombing, but that he has written entries accumulating to 35 A4 pages about it already.

If I had the same behaviour regarding Nazi Germany, always for example pointing out correct historical facts (like war crimes committed by the Allies for example), I would be considered a Nazi apologist if I am doing so consistently.

[milk]

A military commander takes responsibility for the actions of his troops- unless they disobey a direct order. I'm not sure the Khmer Rouge would have been bold enough to disobey orders or carry out something not in line with what the Angkor wanted.

Then you need to acquaint yourself with the several regional forces of the Khmer Rouge army, and how they weren't exactly under a uniform command. And that they fought among themselves when these different forces entered the city on April 17.

[ComradeMan]

It is not that Milk is pointing out what most of us already know, that Cambodia was fucked up before 1975 as well due to American bombing, but that he has written entries accumulating to 35 A4 pages about it already.

If I had the same behaviour regarding Nazi Germany, always for example pointing out correct historical facts (like war crimes committed by the Allies for example), I would be considered a Nazi apologist if I am doing so consistently.

It's not that, it's the overall tone that seemingly seeks to exonerate the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot from any guilt whatsoever and picks at slight details here and there.

The Khmer Rouge blow up the bank, it's not unreasonable to assume that Pol Pot was responsible as commander- but no- there is no evidence for this, yet it is denied equally adamantly despite evidence to the contrary.

[Dimentio]

I don't think that blowing up the bank was so much of a crime. It's only a frigging building.

What is disturbing me a lot is the idea of using a population for forced labour and give them different (low) food rations dependent on whether they are from the urban areas or the countryside.

The Khmer Rogue were nothing else but slave lords and worse oppressors of the people than most capitalists. Most broken third world countries which have emerged from similar conditions have sort of recovered (which Cambodia also slowly did after the Khmer Rogue had been removed by the Vietnamese).

[milk]

Please Milk, if you are not a Khmer Rogue supporter, why are you compelled to fucking defend them in every thread?

Now cut all this crap about Khmer Rogue. This is Popov's thread.


It's my niche history subject, lol. And although I am sorry for the derail, I don't see in what I have written that there is a defence of them.

Make that 36 A4 pages.

[milk]

It's not that, it's the overall tone that seemingly seeks to exonerate the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot from any guilt whatsoever and picks at slight details here and there.

The Khmer Rouge blow up the bank, it's not unreasonable to assume that Pol Pot was responsible as commander- but no- there is no evidence for this, yet it is denied equally adamantly despite evidence to the contrary.

If there is no evidence that he ordered it, then that is that. It was destroyed by Khmer Rouge forces though. That is fact.

[Palingenisis]

The Khmer Rouge blow up the bank, it's not unreasonable to assume that Pol Pot was responsible as commander- but no- there is no evidence for this, yet it is denied equally adamantly despite evidence to the contrary.

But this is the whole point about the Khmer Rouge, people didnt know about the existence of Pol Pot until a year or two into regime or even the existence of CPK. According to one source I read some of the KR fighters believed that they were fighting in the King's army! Authority in the movement was pretty diffuse.

[ComradeMan]

I don't think that blowing up the bank was so much of a crime. It's only a frigging building.

You are right about in essence- it's just a building, but the argumentation around it- leading on from Poppov's point is that yet again it wasn't deliberate or it wasn't Pol Pot.

I'd like to ask Milk- what do you hold Pol Pot and the Angkor responsible for? Let's cut to the chase....

[Dimentio]

It is not a proper defence. But what the fuck did it have to do in that thread?

People are writing stupid things all the day here. People are writing historically incorrect things all the day here. Why is it so fucking important to find out even threads about other subjects and "put history straight"?

You answered a friggin' footnote!

[milk]

But this is the whole point about the Khmer Rouge, people didnt know about the existence of Pol Pot until a year or two into regime or even the existence of CPK. According to one source I read some of the KR fighters believed that they were fighting in the King's army! Authority in the movement was pretty diffuse.

Many peasants initially fought for the Khmer Rouge under the banner of Sihanouk and his reinstatement. The Communist Party was kept secret within the united front (commonly known as the Revolutionary Organisation filled with patriots), although eventually came to have control of it, and sidelined the royalists. The pro-Sihanouk forces called themselves the Khmer Liberators (Khmer Rumdoah). The Communist Party didn't reveal its official existence until September 1977.

[Dimentio]

Many peasants initially fought for the Khmer Rouge under the banner of Sihanouk and his reinstatement. The Communist Party was kept secret within the united front (commonly known as the Revolutionary Organisation filled with patriots), although eventually came to have control of it, and sidelined the royalists. The pro-Sihanouk forces called themselves the Khmer Liberators (Khmer Rumdoah). The Communist Party didn't reveal its official existence until September 1977.

http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Nuncirism

[red cat]

Because you just made that up.

Not really. Take south Asia for example.

[milk]

I'd like to ask Milk- what do you hold Pol Pot and the Angkor responsible for? Let's cut to the chase....

Angkar.

He and his comrades are guilty of conspiring to enslave a people, and bringing unnecessary suffering, further terror and disaster to a country.

[milk]

http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Nuncirism

Their tactics were classically Stalinist within the united front.

[Bud Struggle]

It is not a proper defence. But what the fuck did it have to do in that thread?

People are writing stupid things all the day here. People are writing historically incorrect things all the day here. Why is it so fucking important to find out even threads about other subjects and "put history straight"?

You answered a friggin' footnote!

Dimentio--Comrade, I FEEL for you on this thread. :)

[Widerstand]

Not really. Take south Asia for example.

Can you give me a clear definition of what is "revolutionary action" and numbers of those engaged in revolutionary action which describe as Stalinists, as well as numbers of those engaged in it that don't?

No?

Hum.

So yeah, taking South Asia as an example, are you telling me that all leftists there are Stalinists, or what?

[ComradeMan]

He and his comrades are guilty of conspiring to enslave a people, and bringing unnecessary suffering, further terror and disaster to a country.

So, we are justified in thinking he was a piece of shit in layman's terms....

:thumbup1:

[red cat]

Can you give me a clear definition of what is "revolutionary action" and numbers of those engaged in revolutionary action which describe as Stalinists, as well as numbers of those engaged in it that don't?

No?

Hum.

So yeah, taking South Asia as an example, are you telling me that all leftists there are Stalinists, or what?

Revolutionary action is an action that results in or contributes to positive qualitative change in the relations of production, and is intended for the same purpose.

In South Asia, the dominant leftist movements are Maoist, consisting of people whom you would call Stalinists, and their numbers are something up to the order of millions.

[Bud Struggle]

Are we ready to turn RevLeft into a Stock and Bond buying Forum yet? if this is what Communisn is--maybe it's time to move on.

[ComradeMan]

Are we ready to turn RevLeft into a Stock and Bond buying Forum yet? if this is what Communisn is--maybe it's time to move on.

I still maintain that the Khmer Rouge were not fundamentally communists in any more than their half-cocked rhetoric and bungled attempts to try and lick the political ass of China.

[Palingenisis]

I am a supporter of Pol Pot.

You are usually one of the best posters here but are you sure about this?

Have you checked this out?

http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm

WHAT IS A SOCIALIST ECONOMY?
The CPK was no less wrong about socialism than about New Democracy. It wrongly held that all public property is automatically socialist. Marx identified socialist public property not with state ownership but social ownership. In other words, state ownership, too, can be (and certainly was in pre-liberation Cambodia) a form of private ownership in the Marxist sense, a form in which the surplus produced by the labourers is appropriated by a handful of people for their own interests while the "labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interests of the ruling class require".

Whether or not a society is truly socialist depends on whether or not the labouring masses increasingly, and in waves, are becoming the masters of production (the process of production itself, the relations of people in production and the allocation of the surplus), of the state and of all society, leading step by step but steadily toward the abolition of what the Chinese revolutionaries called "the four alls": class distinctions generally, the relations of production on which they rest, the social relations that correspond to these production relations and all the ideas that result from these social relations. This point deserves the most profound study (see Maoist Economics: The Shanghai Textbook), but even this relatively brief overview here makes it all too plain that despite the CPK's claims to be "20 or 30 years ahead of China", it had embarked on a different road.

Mao's study of the experience of socialist construction in the world, including especially the USSR, as well as China, led him to understand that socialism is a relatively long historical period of transition. The Shanghai Textbook explains, "For a certain period of time in socialist society, there still exist nonsocialist relations of production.... On the other hand, the socialist relations of production themselves undergo a process of development from a less mature to a more mature state. In socialist society, 'communism cannot as yet be fully ripe economically and entirely free from traditions or traces of capitalism.' The establishment of the system of socialist public ownership was a fundamental negation of the system of private ownership. But this does not imply that the issue of ownership is completely settled; bourgeois right has not been abolished entirely in the sphere of ownership. Furthermore, owing to the practice of the commodity system, exchange through money, distribution according to work, and the existence of basic differences between workers and peasants, town and country, and mental and manual labour, bourgeois right still exists to a serious extent in the mutual relations between people, and holds a dominant position in distribution. This kind of bourgeois right in the historical period of socialism cannot be entirely abolished, and, in certain aspects it is still allowed to exist legally and is protected by the state. It can only be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat, which actively creates the conditions for the elimination of bourgeois right from the stage of history."81

Bourgeois right refers to economic and social relations that uphold formal equality but actually contain elements of inequality.82 While the CPK thought that it had solved the problem of social inequalities and therefore of classes overnight by getting rid of money and wages, bourgeois right inevitably continued to exist. For instance, to speak only of "natural" inequalities, under its distribution system able-bodied young people got larger rations than the handicapped or the elderly. Since the productive level was so low, there was not enough surplus to feed everyone equally. Another example is certain indispensable privileges extended to leading cadre, such as access to transport, radios, etc., as well as extra food rations and medicines to ensure their survival. Absolute egalitarianism proved impossible. As Mao said, criticising this idea when it arose in the early days of the Red Army in China, "We should point out that, before the abolition of capitalism, absolute egalitarianism is a mere illusion of peasants and small proprietors, and that even under socialism there can be no absolute equality, for material things will then be distributed according to the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work' as well as on that of meeting the needs of the work."83

Under communism, Marx said, society will be guided by the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". But until then bourgeois right can only be eliminated gradually and step by step. In brief, the leap from "according to their work" to "according to their need" will be made possible by the increasing communist consciousness of the masses (which is the driving factor) and the development of production (so that people's needs can actually be satisfied). Not only was the apparent abolition of bourgeois right under the DK regime an illusion, it hid actual injustices, a denial of rights, such as "old people" getting privileges over "new people" (in fact, once again this smelled of feudalism, since family relations could play a determinate role in whether an individual was classified as "new" or "old"). If the regime had lasted longer and especially if it had succeeded in industrialising, these inequalities (which were already potentially fatal) would only have become more pronounced.

The CPK muddled socialism and communism by doing away with wages, money, etc., but met neither the criterion of communism (in fact, not meeting the needs of the masses at all) nor that of socialism (by not taking into account people's productive labour at all in determining what they receive, but simply giving them starvation rations and sometimes less, which actually hampered production by dampening their enthusiasm for work and often leaving them unable to do so). As Mao said in a different context, this was like wanting a cow to produce milk but not letting it eat grass.

Pol Pot looked at the problem like this: "Where can we find capital to build our industry? Our capital comes essentially from the work of our people. Our people, by their work, develop agricultural production.... We also have another important source of capital. That is the fact that we have no salary. The absence of salary constitutes in itself a great source of capital."84 While it is true that the surplus created by production is the source of capital under socialism as well as capitalism, this completely and deliberately ignores the difference between this surplus under capitalism and socialism, where "accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer". They adopted the basic capitalist principle of squeezing the labouring people as much as possible... in many cases, to death.85 In this view, similar to the one that attracts Western capital to set up garment factories in Cambodia today, the country's main comparative advantage is not rice but the fact that its backward social relations make for very cheap labour.

Historically, by far the main error committed in relation to bourgeois right has been to resist moving step by step to eliminate it. Until the "four alls" are eliminated, it will not be "impossible for the bourgeoisie to exist or a new bourgeoisie to arise".86 In one of his most far-reaching contributions, made amidst the struggle to prevent Deng and others like him from seizing control of the Party and the state, Mao warned the people, "Our country at present practices a commodity system, the wage system is unequal too, as in the eight-grade scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power [here Mao was summing up the lessons of a previous two-line struggle within the party to serve a new one, against Deng Xiaoping], it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system. That is why we should do more reading of Marxist-Leninist works."87

But the CPK was committing this same error in another, "unique" fashion. Money had been abolished, but commodity production still prevailed: co-operatives gave the state a certain amount of rice and other products (valued in dollars) and received other commodities in exchange; rice itself was considered the most important commodity not because it could feed people but because it could be exchanged on the international market. It was deemed unprofitable to divert efforts from this capital formation to the struggle against malaria and other diseases that were ravishing the people.88 In fact, labour power itself remained a commodity, since the purpose of production was not to satisfy the people's needs but to accumulate capital. Under these conditions, the abolition of money simply served as a very threadbare cloak to hide the dominance of capitalism, and the absence of wages an attempt to hide the most bone-cutting exploitation.

Actually, the CPK's line was not entirely "unique". In China, the revisionist ringleaders Liu Shao-chi and Chen Po-ta called for the premature abolition of commodity production, the Shanghai Textbook recounts. Mao retorted, "This way of thinking which attempts to prematurely abolish commodity production and exchange, prematurely negate the constructive role of commodities, value, money and price is detrimental to developing socialist construction and is therefore incorrect." The textbook goes on to say, "Socialist commodity production must not only be retained, but must be developed to consolidate the economic link between China's industry and agriculture and between urban and rural areas in order to promote the development of socialist construction."89

Chang Chun-chiao, one of Mao's closest comrades in arms (and a leader of the "Gang of Four" whose arrest signalled a reactionary coup in China after Mao's death) put it this way: "The wind of 'communisation' as stirred up by Liu Shao-chi and Chen Po-ta shall never be allowed to rise again. We have always held that, instead of having too much in the way of commodities, our country has not yet a sufficient abundance of them. So as long as the communes cannot yet offer a great deal to be 'communised' along with what the production teams and the work brigades would bring in, and enterprises under ownership by the whole people cannot offer a great abundance of products for distribution to each according to his needs among our 800 million people, we will have to continue practising commodity production, exchange through money and distribution according to work. We have taken and will continue to take proper measures to curb the harm caused by these things. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship by the masses."90

In other words, the point is not to enshrine money and commodity production, but to work to develop the political and material conditions for their abolition and not just "abolish" them in words while protecting the actual relations they represent.

[red cat]

The Khmer Rouge might have had many defects, but so did every revolutionary movement that emerged during the late 60s, due to being immature and confused by the multiple reactionary lines in China itself that attempted to corrupt the GPCR from within, and ultimately succeeded in bringing down the revolution. The ones among these that managed to survive through the 80s even as a small fraction of what they began with, are the largest communist movements of today. The many ultra-leftist adventurist features that led to their decline in the beginning do not imply that they were not revolutionary then. The same applies to those movements which never made it through that phase. So we should principally uphold the Khmer Rouge and then criticize it for its errors.

[ComradeMan]

So we should principally uphold the Khmer Rouge and then criticize it for its errors.

No... they were out and out racists and nationalists- :crying:

[red cat]

No... they were out and out racists and nationalists- :crying:

Nationalism is a common feature of national liberation mass-movements, since it arises among the masses as a natural reaction to imperialism, and transforms into internationalism only after the revolution has progressed up to a certain stage. Do you have any concrete proof to support the racism claim ? Sometimes certain communities constitute the vast majority of oppressors at places. Due to this violence or mass-sentiment against them may seem racist, but it is actually a very crude expression of class contradiction. For example, when the Indian masses used the slogan "British dogs go back", or when the same slogan is a bit modified and used in Nepal today as "Indian dogs go away", it can hardly be called racist.

[ComradeMan]

Nationalism is a common feature of national liberation mass-movements, since it arises among the masses as a natural reaction to imperialism, and transforms into internationalism only after the revolution has progressed up to a certain stage. Do you have any concrete proof to support the racism claim ? Sometimes certain communities constitute the vast majority of oppressors at places. Due to this violence or mass-sentiment against them may seem racist, but it is actually a very crude expression of class contradiction. For example, when the Indian masses used the slogan "British dogs go back", or when the same slogan is a bit modified and used in Nepal today as "Indian dogs go away", it can hardly be called racist.

The Indians were fighting those who were occupying them. The Khmer Rouge ruthlessly turned on ethnic minorities... think about the difference;)

[mosfeld]

The Indians were fighting those who were occupying them. The Khmer Rouge ruthlessly turned on ethnic minorities... think about the difference;) Their "racist" sentiment was primarily directed at the Vietnamese.

[red cat]

The Indians were fighting those who were occupying them. The Khmer Rouge ruthlessly turned on ethnic minorities... think about the difference;)

If these ethnic minorities were mostly not the oppressors, then the alleged racism against could be one of the following:

1) The Khmer Rouge helped them in waging their class war, which was later retold as a story of racism by reactionaries, similar to the lies about the Chinese intervention in Tibet.

2) Local reactionaries used the military power of the Khmer Rouge to subdue their opponents.

There is little chance that it could be anything other than these.

[ComradeMan]

Their "racist" sentiment was primarily directed at the Vietnamese.

Cham Muslims, Chinese, "primitives".... in fact anyone who was not postively Khmer enough... come off it.

And even if it were primarily directed at the Vietnamese... that makes it okay? They weren't taking on the Vietnamese army who kicked their asses in the end- they were victimising defenseless people...

[Rêve Rouge]

If these ethnic minorities were mostly not the oppressors, then the alleged racism against could be one of the following:

1) The Khmer Rouge helped them in waging their class war, which was later retold as a story of racism by reactionaries, similar to the lies about the Chinese intervention in Tibet.

2) Local reactionaries used the military power of the Khmer Rouge to subdue their opponents.

There is little chance that it could be anything other than these.

I think you should ask Cambodians of Chinese, Cham and/or Vietnamese descent who lived during the KR times and ask their opinion. They would probably know best. I'll just leave these articles here to show the KR's ethnocentric personality.

Against the Vietnamese: http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2009/06/khmer-rouge-prison-chief-testifies-that.html

Against the Chinese: http://www.krtrial.info/showarticle.php?language=english&action=showarticle&art_id=4270&needback=1

[Palingenisis]

If these ethnic minorities were mostly not the oppressors, then the alleged racism against could be one of the following:

1) The Khmer Rouge helped them in waging their class war, which was later retold as a story of racism by reactionaries, similar to the lies about the Chinese intervention in Tibet.

2) Local reactionaries used the military power of the Khmer Rouge to subdue their opponents.

There is little chance that it could be anything other than these.

I think the problem was that many cadres saw anyone who had been to Vietnam or even those who came from the cities which were "softer" and more westernized as being in some way essentially polluted. You have to remember also the lack of political education coupled with the trauma that the country had been through. There was a definite racial element if not the central committee of the CPK than at least among many of the cadres.

[ComradeMan]

I think you should ask Cambodians of Chinese, Cham and/or Vietnamese descent who lived during the KR times and ask their opinion. They would probably know best. I'll just leave these articles here to show the KR's ethnocentric personality.

Against the Vietnamese: http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2009/06/khmer-rouge-prison-chief-testifies-that.html

Against the Chinese: http://www.krtrial.info/showarticle.php?language=english&action=showarticle&art_id=4270&needback=1

:thumbup1:

Yeah, and of course we can't ask the dead ones either.

[red cat]

I think you should ask Cambodians of Chinese, Cham and/or Vietnamese descent who lived during the KR times and ask their opinion. They would probably know best.

Such asking does not really help. Ask any Indian of any descent whom you know IRL about the naxalites and see how he reacts.



I'll just leave these articles here to show the KR's ethnocentric personality.

Against the Vietnamese: http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2009/06/khmer-rouge-prison-chief-testifies-that.html

Against the Chinese: http://www.krtrial.info/showarticle.php?language=english&action=showarticle&art_id=4270&needback=1

Many new "facts" about the KR's mass murders will keep on coming out until there is a new revolution in Cambodia.

[mosfeld]

And even if it were primarily directed at the Vietnamese... that makes it okay?

Considering that the Vietnamese had a hostile and chauvinist attitude towards Kampuchea, I think it's a fairly natural reaction.

[red cat]

Considering that the Vietnamese had a hostile and chauvinist attitude towards Kampuchea, I think it's a fairly natural reaction.

What was the class composition of the Vietnamese living in Cambodia ?

[Dimentio]

The Khmer Rouge might have had many defects, but so did every revolutionary movement that emerged during the late 60s, due to being immature and confused by the multiple reactionary lines in China itself that attempted to corrupt the GPCR from within, and ultimately succeeded in bringing down the revolution. The ones among these that managed to survive through the 80s even as a small fraction of what they began with, are the largest communist movements of today. The many ultra-leftist adventurist features that led to their decline in the beginning do not imply that they were not revolutionary then. The same applies to those movements which never made it through that phase. So we should principally uphold the Khmer Rouge and then criticize it for its errors.

Many defects?

Is forced labour somehow acceptable?

[Rêve Rouge]

Such asking does not really help. Ask any Indian of any descent whom you know IRL about the naxalites and see how he reacts.

Yes well here's the problem. The KR and the Naxalites are two unrelated organizations.

The hostilities towards the Vietnamese are deeply rooted within Cambodia throughout history. It still goes on today. The KR simply radicalized those hostilities. And what more proof do you need than the personal experiences explained by the victims and/or their families themselves? Do you need to see an actual official documentation printed and signed off by a KR leader that explicitly states their hostile policies towards the Vietnamese, Chinese, etc?

[L.A.P.]

Where did anyone say that?

I'm sorry, but what were you saying about how all Stalinists try to justify or say the events of the Khmer Rouge were exaggerated? Because I'm pretty sure SocialismOrBarbarism is a Trotskyist.

[Dimentio]

I am glad that I split off this rotting cadaver of a thread.

[L.A.P.]

Well, lol, there's no rule saying "KHMER ROUGE = BAN" but if you go around defending Pol Pot you'll either drop it or be forced into the position of mass murder/genocide supporter, which would likely get you banned.

So basically you get indirectly banned for supporting Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Good.

[Palingenisis]

Considering that the Vietnamese had a hostile and chauvinist attitude towards Kampuchea, I think it's a fairly natural reaction.

Yes and no...what maybe the "natural" reaction is not always the correct one.

I mean I have been accused here of being a mad nationalist and having anti-English chauvinism but Ive lived in England and have English friends. I have argued against Republicans who do have exagerated anti-English attitudes and who see English civilization as the fount of all evil. Its when you reduce people to being essentially reactionary that I really believe you have become reactionary....I think the attacks on Khmers who had merely lived in Vietnam as if that had magically somehow made them corrupt was reactionary.

[Palingenisis]

Nationalism is a common feature of national liberation mass-movements, since it arises among the masses as a natural reaction to imperialism, and transforms into internationalism only after the revolution has progressed up to a certain stage.

Yes but I think its important that draw the line that the Maoist Black Panther Party did in the USA between reactionary and revolutionary nationalism within an oppressed nation.

[mosfeld]

What was the class composition of the Vietnamese living in Cambodia ? I think milk would be more fit to answer that question. I was talking about the Vietnamese government, which at the time of the invasion on Kampuchea, had become a Soviet puppet and desired to control Kampuchea.


When the quarrel between Communist Vietnam and Cambodia became public in 1978, Phnom Penh broadcast the confession of a Vietnamese soldier who stated that in 1973 Vietnamese cadres were told that Cambodia must be forced to accept the Paris Agreement, and "whether Cambodia agrees with us or is not the problem, because Cambodia has a small population." He maintained that cadres were taught that "after finishing the war in Indochina, we would become the big brother in Indochina....As the big brother we had to govern the younger brothers and not allow them to do anything at will....We should, as a common duty, force Cambodia to accept the Paris Agreement....a great success achieved by Vietnam in the international arena."

[Dimentio]

Vietnam left Cambodia after the moderate Khmer Rogue and the government had agreed to have a transition towards peace. If they had any territorial designs on Cambodia, they would have simply annexed the country.

Was it the Vietnamese leadership who called for the destruction of the Cambodian population now again?

[Blackscare]

If these ethnic minorities were mostly not the oppressors, then the alleged racism against could be one of the following:

1) The Khmer Rouge helped them in waging their class war, which was later retold as a story of racism by reactionaries, similar to the lies about the Chinese intervention in Tibet.

2) Local reactionaries used the military power of the Khmer Rouge to subdue their opponents.

There is little chance that it could be anything other than these.

And you come to this conclusion how, exactly? Because you don't want it to be the case?



What was the class composition of the Vietnamese living in Cambodia ?

What was the class composition of the Jews before WW2? I mean, that is the exact same argument used along economic lines by the Nazis (among others, but the main justification was economic usury).

[red cat]

Many defects?

Is forced labour somehow acceptable?

How was it forced ? Did Khmer Rouge members stand with long whips while the common masses laboured before them ? Or was it confined to encouraging the masses to labour, with possibly Khmer Rouge members joining them ? It is highly improbable that the Khmer Rouge would be able to hold out a single day against imperialism if it was the former.

[Blackscare]

Their "racist" sentiment was primarily directed at the Vietnamese.


Yes, because Viet people always existed within the borders of what is now Vietnam, of course. :rolleyes:



Or, Viets constitute an ethnic minority within Cambodia as well as vice-versa. That's the way ethnicity usually works, broski.

[red cat]

Yes well here's the problem. The KR and the Naxalites are two unrelated organizations.

The hostilities towards the Vietnamese are deeply rooted within Cambodia throughout history. It still goes on today. The KR simply radicalized those hostilities. And what more proof do you need than the personal experiences explained by the victims and/or their families themselves? Do you need to see an actual official documentation printed and signed off by a KR leader that explicitly states their hostile policies towards the Vietnamese, Chinese, etc?

If you base your analyses on what apolitical or non-revolutionary people tell you, then you are most likely to be wrong. If you ask even a worker belonging to a country undergoing a revolution, but from an area where the revolutionary forces have not entered, he is most likely to be hostile to them due to lack of interaction. Upper-classes from any area will almost certainly be hostile. Similarly, if you "ask" Cambodians decades after the revolution has been defeated, they are most likely to give you wrong answers, because those that make it to the west are generally from the well-off class, and the masses have been fed anti-communist propaganda for a long time.

[red cat]

Yes but I think its important that draw the line that the Maoist Black Panther Party did in the USA between reactionary and revolutionary nationalism within an oppressed nation.

I am not very sure about taking that as a demarcation line. Other revolutionary organizations might have different variants of nationalism to greater extents.

[Dimentio]

How was it forced ? Did Khmer Rouge members stand with long whips while the common masses laboured before them ? Or was it confined to encouraging the masses to labour, with possibly Khmer Rouge members joining them ? It is highly improbable that the Khmer Rouge would be able to hold out a single day against imperialism if it was the former.

If they did not work, they either got their rations lowered or were shot as saboteurs against the revolution. It wasn't whips. It was guns, and in some cases axes and clubs.

[red cat]

If they did not work, they either got their rations lowered or were shot as saboteurs against the revolution. It wasn't whips. It was guns, and in some cases axes and clubs.

This type of propaganda is used to portray not only non-European communists but all non-Europeans in general as ruthless barbarians.

[Blackscare]

Red Cat, you've still failed to back up any of your claims, all you've done is call everything anyone else said regurgitated propaganda.


Also, I'm still interested in your seeming justification of ethnic cleansing on the basis of economic position.

[Dimentio]

This type of propaganda is used to portray not only non-European communists but all non-Europeans in general as ruthless barbarians.

Europe has had it far shares of tyrannies as well. Just look at Nazi Germany.

You must be really desperate.

[Blackscare]

Europe has had it far shares of tyrannies as well. Just look at Nazi Germany.

You must be really desperate.


Yes, really. As if white people don't have a history of immense brutality.


Just as frustrating and counter-productive as buying into western impressions of Socialist movements wholesale, is the rejection of anything negative about such movements as being purely "propaganda".


Red Cat, admit it, you have no proof to support anything that you're saying, you're just banking on the chance that you're right.

[Rêve Rouge]

If you base your analyses on what apolitical or non-revolutionary people tell you, then you are most likely to be wrong. If you ask even a worker belonging to a country undergoing a revolution, but from an area where the revolutionary forces have not entered, he is most likely to be hostile to them due to lack of interaction. Upper-classes from any area will almost certainly be hostile. Similarly, if you "ask" Cambodians decades after the revolution has been defeated, they are most likely to give you wrong answers, because those that make it to the west are generally from the well-off class, and the masses have been fed anti-communist propaganda for a long time.

So only political people or revolutionaries have the ultimate say on what is considered racism? And another thing, being a refuge does not automatically make you upper-class. There are plenty of Cambodian refugees who were farmers.

Although I do agree with you that Cambodians were fed anti-communist propaganda. But that wasn't my point.

[red cat]

Europe has had it far shares of tyrannies as well. Just look at Nazi Germany.

You must be really desperate.

But then, it was directed at a minority of the population, and they were targeted officially. It cannot be compared with the huge difference between the theory that the Khmer Rouge adhered to and the "facts" that the official bourgeois sources of history offer us.

[red cat]

So only political people or revolutionaries have the ultimate say on what is considered racism? And another thing, being a refuge does not automatically make you upper-class. There are plenty of Cambodian refugees who were farmers.

Although I do agree with you that Cambodians were fed anti-communist propaganda. But that wasn't my point.

When it comes to gathering information about a regime that claimed to be communist, one must be extra-sure about his sources. The question is not totally about being political or apolitical; it is mostly about with whom, when and how you interact.

Even if a person is a farmer, he might be a middle or big peasant or even a lower peasant working for the ruling class for very small benefits. In general these people have the upper hand when it comes to moving abroad, as they can be even transported illegally by imperialist-lackeys. An average peasant has neither the economic nor the cultural capabilities to leave his country.

[red cat]

Yes, really. As if white people don't have a history of immense brutality.


Why do we have so many net sources whining about Pol Pot and Mao while keeping totally silent about what western imperialism did in Asia ?


Just as frustrating and counter-productive as buying into western impressions of Socialist movements wholesale, is the rejection of anything negative about such movements as being purely "propaganda".


Red Cat, admit it, you have no proof to support anything that you're saying, you're just banking on the chance that you're right.


No, I cannot prove that the Khmer Rouge did not engage in whatever is alleged. But there is no conclusive proof of the contrary either.

[Dimentio]

But then, it was directed at a minority of the population, and they were targeted officially. It cannot be compared with the huge difference between the theory that the Khmer Rouge adhered to and the "facts" that the official bourgeois sources of history offer us.

So people who because of undernourishment did a sloppy work weren't shot? They weren't forced to work? People who had glasses weren't persecuted? Minorities weren't persecuted?

Most third world dictatorships, including Afghanistan of the Taleban (which was about as fucked up as Cambodia) has been better places with less mortality rates than Cambodia.

Exactly what made Democratic Kampuchea's government in any way superior or equal to the governments of Vietnam or Laos?

[F9]

I am a supporter of Pol Pot.

Shoot me now!!Dont leave me in here for more, i may get affected from stupidity.And to think i didnt think of you as one of the idiots.
Are you serious with the shit posting in this thread?Wait no, i dont want an answer...

[Palingenisis]

I am not very sure about taking that as a demarcation line. Other revolutionary organizations might have different variants of nationalism to greater extents.

Well think in India you have the Naxalites who are revolutionary nationalists and than you have reactionary Hindus who would also be opposed to western interference in India. Reactionary nationalism tends to have an uncritical attitude towards the traditional culture of the oppressed nation, tends to emphasis the nation's greatness and indeed superiority over other nations as opposed to opposing Imperialist domination on the ground that it is wrong full stop. Reactionary nationalist also tend to be untrustworthy allies...In my own nation's national liberation war half way through the British offered a treaty that divided the country and gave it a semi-independence to the reactionary nationalists who accepted it and than with British help turned on the revolutionary nationalists and slaughtered them.

[scarletghoul]

There are some big problems with the Khmer Rouge, and severe criticisms to be made.

However anyone who's looked even briefly at the organisational structure of the Khmer Rouge, especially during the guerilla stage (which the blowing up of the bank is part of) would know that Pol Pot and the other top Angkar leaders did not micro-manage things and order every action. In fact, the internal structure of the Khmer Rouge was pretty 'libertarian' and 'decentralised'. Ground level cadres had a lot of power.

To label people as supporters or non-supporters of the Khmer Rouge, not to mention Pol Pot himself, only serves to detract from the objective facts and the important historical and strategic lessons to be drawn from them.

[Palingenisis]

The same applies to those movements which never made it through that phase. So we should principally uphold the Khmer Rouge and then criticize it for its errors.

But the point that World To Win was arguing from Maoist sources is that the Khmer Rouge were actually revisionist and not misguided Communists.

[Apoi_Viitor]

How was it forced ? Did Khmer Rouge members stand with long whips while the common masses laboured before them ? Or was it confined to encouraging the masses to labour, with possibly Khmer Rouge members joining them ? It is highly improbable that the Khmer Rouge would be able to hold out a single day against imperialism if it was the former.

Encouragement?

Well, you'll work harder with a gun in your back, for a bowl of rice a day.

http://www.intellasia.net/news/uploads/5/KhmerRougeCanal600.jpg

[mosfeld]

Quoting a punk band does not constitute an argument, sorry.

[Widerstand]

Revolutionary action is an action that results in or contributes to positive qualitative change in the relations of production, and is intended for the same purpose.

In South Asia, the dominant leftist movements are Maoist, consisting of people whom you would call Stalinists, and their numbers are something up to the order of millions.

I dunno, I wouldn't call all Maoists Stalinists, so maybe you are wrong here?

[mosfeld]

I dunno, I wouldn't call all Maoists Stalinists, so maybe you are wrong here?

Maoists uphold Stalin, so why aren't Maoists dumped into the Stalinist category?

http://www.dakotavoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/5padricomunisti.gif

[Widerstand]

So basically you get indirectly banned for supporting Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Good.

Nah I think you'd get restricted or treated like a typical stalinite lunazic ratheer

[milk]

When the quarrel between Communist Vietnam and Cambodia became public in 1978, Phnom Penh broadcast the confession of a Vietnamese soldier who stated that in 1973 Vietnamese cadres were told that Cambodia must be forced to accept the Paris Agreement, and "whether Cambodia agrees with us or is not the problem, because Cambodia has a small population." He maintained that cadres were taught that "after finishing the war in Indochina, we would become the big brother in Indochina....As the big brother we had to govern the younger brothers and not allow them to do anything at will....We should, as a common duty, force Cambodia to accept the Paris Agreement....a great success achieved by Vietnam in the international arena."

Yes, the Khmer Rouge refused to enter the peace talks in Paris in December 1972, and the intense January-August USAF bombing campaign over Cambodia's rural areas in 1973 was a direct consequence of this, to halt the advance of the Khmer Rouge army. The question of the Vietnamese and their relationship with the Khmers was discussed earlier, at the 'Third' Congress of the CPK in 1971, at their Chinnit River stronghold. During the war, there were fears over the fragility of the United Front with Sihanouk which had served them well, and also the fact that, during the early years of the 1970-75 conflict, the Khmer Rouge were reliant on the Vietnam People’s Army in their fight against the forces of Lon Nol's Khmer Republic. At the Congress, they formulated a two-pronged line of action for wartime: that there was to be an ambiguous ‘fraternal friendship’ with the Vietnamese, combined with an insistence upon the historical positioning of the CPK’s revolutionary struggle as being a separate one. That is, separate to the wider objectives in Indochina of the Vietnamese in their own struggle against the South and United States. Chauvinism had to be kept in check, contained for expediency's sake, but Khmer Rouge military commanders would come to ignore the first prong of the political line and instead relied on violence (and anti-Vietnamese violence) as their principal method for promoting their desired ‘independent’ struggle. The meaning of this independent struggle for many nationalist-minded military commanders and cadre was, that as far a possible, the Cambodian war of national liberation was to be led by the Khmer Rouge, and that the post-war revolution was not, under any circumstances, to be integrated within a Vietnamese-dominated Indochinese socialist federation.

There is also the origin of the Cambodian Communist movement to consider; in that it largely came from the Vietnamese in resistance to the French during the First Indochina War. The CPK evolved from a party set up with Vietnamese guidance in 1951, named the Khmer People's Revolutionary Party. The end of the war physically split the Cambodian movement, with many fighters leaving for Hanoi and those that remained either staffing this organisation or another legal group called the Pracheachon, set up to contest the two violent and fraudulent elections in the mid-late 1950s. And then another development in the 1960s with a change of party leadership (the Paris-educated Khmers, some of whom would form the Pol Pot group), and a later inadequate insurgency (the Khmer Rouge) against a government trying hard to keep itself out of another major war in the region, this time with the United States and its local allies. A government also entangled in dealings with Vietnamese Communists regarding the use of Cambodian territory in their war with the South and the US.

the Vietnamese and Pol Pot group would come to have competing objectives. They were both Communists (or claimed to be) of the Marxist-Leninist type and developed politics which attempted to be congruent with that. In very general terms, two political lines emerged as a result of geopolitical considerations and the problems inherent in them for creating Communist unity between Cambodia and Vietnam. There were the Vietnamese Communist assessments that Laos and Cambodia were too economically and socially backward for socialism, so Communists in those two countries, and under their guidance, should assist the orthodox Vietnamese struggle and then follow them to socialism. Victory in Vietnam would bring change to both in a Vietnamese-led socialist federation. They saw Sihanouk as an ally and had a very important strategic interest in Cambodia (to be rid of the US), and so stressed to the Khmers that peaceful opposition should be made regarding domestic policies but be united with Prince Sihanouk in national matters, in order to ensure Cambodia's independence, and prevent US influence from spreading. This was simply unworkable, for the Khmer Communists were persecuted, jailed and killed by Sihanouk's police. The Khmers dismissed what they saw as a revisionist Khrushchevesque line from the Vietnamese, developed their own Maoist-like political line, and moved out to the the rural areas with the principle aim of mobilising the peasantry for armed struggle to overthrow the government. It was this set of differences over how and when socialism should be brought to Cambodia which, aside from traditional chauvinism, was a source of enmity when the Vietnamese would refuse to aid the inadequate Khmer Rouge insurgency.

But on traditional anti-Vietnamese chauvinism, this was a very good reason why at the beginning the Vietnamese were apprehensive about organising a Communist movement in the country, aside from their own orthodox assessment of Cambodia (it was not not ready for socialism, it needed more development). As an example from the period of resistance to colonialism, the French had a cynical strategy, what they called Three Countries Independent, which the old Viet Minh ridiculed as a cover for the continuance of colonial rule, with mere cosmetic changes in the co-option of indigenous elites, but leaving essential powers in French hands. The Viet Minh countered with Three Fronts United in resistance to them, but behind all of the sneers and guffaws about what the French were up to, the Vietnamese were shit scared that the French would by way of it successfully portray the Vietnamese as being the real imperialists in the region.

[red cat]

Encouragement?

Well, you'll work harder with a gun in your back, for a bowl of rice a day.

http://www.intellasia.net/news/uploads/5/KhmerRougeCanal600.jpg

Thanks for the pic. Similarly, in south Asia when the masses farm in the fields, dig canals or build hospitals, such a situation is seen with whole guerrilla units deployed by the village collectives in order to protect the workers from state forces. The guerrilla fighters will chat with the workers or sing revolutionary songs together and occasionally swap places with tired workers.

[red cat]

But the point that World To Win was arguing from Maoist sources is that the Khmer Rouge were actually revisionist and not misguided Communists.

The World To Win and organizations related to the RIM were never fully trusted by third-world Maoists.

[Dimentio]

Either, you are a lying scumbag, or you have a hopelessly romantic image of the Khmer Rogue. Do you support Sendero Luminoso as well?

[ComradeMan]

You know Red Cat, I am a bit surprised with this stance- I mean, it's like if I started supporting FARC and saying what their principles were and all that, just ignoring all the other shit they do in the meantime....

The fact that the "communist" regime of the Khmer Rouge was toppled by a communist regime and then went on to be supported by capitalist interests to me shows how fundamentally uncommunist they were. I think they were just nationalists who took on the clothes of communism when it suited them and when they realised they were fucking things up badly, were pretty much despised around the world by both left and right and needed some support.

[Palingenisis]

The World To Win and organizations related to the RIM were never fully trusted by third-world Maoists.

I thought it was the RCP in particular which they didnt fully trust (and with very good reason but thats another story) rather than RIM as such?

I do find what they have written there about the Khmer Rouge both balanced (unlike a lot of the hysteria and falsification that you find about them) and compelling.

[Palingenisis]

Either, you are a lying scumbag, or you have a hopelessly romantic image of the Khmer Rogue. Do you support Sendero Luminoso as well?

Of course he does, he is a revolutionary Communist. The Shining Path came the closest in recent history to actually bringing down capitalism in a country. They and their martyrs remain an inspiration that gives hope to many of the wretched of the earth where otherwise there would be no hope.

This is the thing....Imperialism will tolerate the unsucessful and polite "radicalism" we all too often find here because it appears niave, amusing, cute and helps give some substance to the illusion of democracy...But actual liberation from its chains or anything seriously moving towards that it hates and covers with all manner of hysterical slander...And here is the point where I think (respectfully) that Mosflied and Red cat are going wrong...They I think are presuming because thats what Imperialism does than (and lets face it Imperialism has put up a false image of what went on in Democratic Kampuchea as milk, who isnt a supporter of theirs, has shown) than the CPK must be okay.

[Dimentio]

Sendero Luminoso massacred civilians as much as the Peruvian army.

Exactly what does "liberating the oppressed masses" entail? Like forcing them to dig ditches and kill those who are slowest?

To put Gúzman in jail was pretty lenient I would say. He is as much a martyr of the oppressed masses as Jack the Ripper was a fighter for social rights in East End.

[ComradeMan]

Sendero Luminoso massacred civilians as much as the Peruvian army.

Exactly what does "liberating the oppressed masses" entail? Like forcing them to dig ditches and kill those who are slowest?

To put Gúzman in jail was pretty lenient I would say. He is as much a martyr of the oppressed masses as Jack the Ripper was a fighter for social rights in East End.

Pregnant women, old ladies and six month old babies.... Quite frankly, I'd rather not be "liberated" by them....

You know, Allende was a decent guy no one ever talks about him, I think he is the greatest tragedy for the left, especially in South American terms- but then he didn't have child-soldiers, slogans and flashy logos etc and was quite peaceful in his approach.

RIP Allende- gone but not forgotten.

[mosfeld]

I thought it was the RCP in particular which they didnt fully trust (and with very good reason but thats another story) rather than RIM as such? RIM was always almost solely under the RCPs control.

[milk]

It is simply silly or naive (or hypocritically liberal) to believe that neither side, left or right, will not commit excesses and atrocities in a war which are rightly indefensible. Are there examples of left-wing groups or those associated with them in such situations that haven't done such things?

And Allende is the perfect example of what happens when your enemies don't like political change.

[milk]

I think they were just nationalists who took on the clothes of communism when it suited them

This is utter nonsense. If it was all only skin-deep, then why did they go about putting into place such risky and profound policies?

[ComradeMan]

It is simply silly or naive (or hypocritically liberal) to believe that neither side, left or right, will not commit excesses and atrocities in a war which are rightly indefensible. Are there examples of left-wing groups or those associated with them in such situations that haven't done such things?

And Allende is the perfect example of what happens when your enemies don't like political change.

It is simply silly or naive (or hypocritically liberal) to believe that neither side, left or right, will not commit excesses and atrocities in a war which are rightly indefensible.

And it's silly to promote ourselves as progressive and wanting change for the better and support them.

I have never heard of Zapatistas doing atrocities.

Allende was left out to dry by the Soviets and the US- so much for solidarity.

[milk]

According to your logic you could never support Allende, for his links with the Soviets were tainted by the USSR being guilty of committing atrocities. Liberal La La Land.

[mosfeld]

I have never heard of Zappatistas doing atrocities.

During the first seven months of the Peruvian people's war, three people died. (Im quoting a reactionary senderologist, like you and Dimentio, called Simon Strong)

"The guerilla war got on its way and the weapons were obtained in the course of political and military actions, which from May to December 1980, according to official government sources, meant 220 acts of violence. Sabotage, the "redistribution" of lands and crops, and intense political mobilization took place in nearly all departments but mainly in Ayacucho, Lima, and Junin," and "by the end of the year . . . the revolution had surreptitiously caused the death of three persons, a policeman, a mining company employee and a landlord."
The Shining Path of Peru: The World's Deadliest Revolutionary Force p. 102-104

And then, to quote the PCP.:


In Chiapas (Mexico), in the first month of the uprising, of the famous "cartoon guerrilla" EZLN, there were many more dead among large state farmers, peasants, policeman, guerrillas and soldiers. So, the Communist Party of Peru cannot be considered "blood thirsty" for having killed one policeman in the first seven months of People's War.

Concerning these three atrocious, genocidal, war crimes committed by the PCP...


1. Who was the famous landlord whose death Strong and Amnesty International so much lamented? His story is well known, and the great Peruvian writer Manuel Scorza narrates it in his book, "The Silent War." This big landowner was the most hated man in all the Andes, responsible for the deaths and repression of thousands of peasants.

Here is the true story of the famous landlord: the people judged him for the crimes against humble peasants he had been committing since his feudal and arrogant youth. No body shed a single tear on his tomb.

2. Who was the policeman annihilated? In trying to condemn the people's trial and execution, Strong himself reluctantly provides the answer: "Peruvian police have predilection for drunkenness and prostitution, they are despised by the population....it is an increasingly demoralized police." But this is only part of the answer. In addition, it is a murderous and corrupt police. Whoever has lived in or just visited the Peruvian countryside, and has seen how police and the armed forces mistreat the peasants and the people, while protecting the rich, stealing the little things they have, slaughtering their animals, raping women and girls, killing children, burning their "chozas" (small shacks) and disappearing people as presumed "terrorists," and later dumping their bodies in mass graves dug by the same victims. On the other hand, only one of those myrmidons was killed by the PCP in seven months of the People's War while accomplishing some many benefits for the people. Such things are the work of a well-planned people's revolution, a revolution with established political and military plans, which does not kill for the sake of killing.

3. With respect to the mining company employee executed. In addressing this issue, we must ask: how many workers have been massacred by the bullets of oil and mining corporations? Thousands. The foremen, personnel and security chiefs, and big executives are the henchmen of the big imperialist conglomerates and play an important role in those crimes. The richest and most oppressive employees always seek to please their masters by exploiting the workers with fire and blood. Thus, they ensure the profits and defend the property of their employers earning the just hatred of the workers. So, if one of these lackeys fell in combat with the guerrilla, that is good, which cannot be considered an act "against the civilian population" as the Yankee government and its "human rights" organizations continuously claim."

http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/rights/strong.htm

[Dimentio]

It is simply silly or naive (or hypocritically liberal) to believe that neither side, left or right, will not commit excesses and atrocities in a war which are rightly indefensible. Are there examples of left-wing groups or those associated with them in such situations that haven't done such things?

And Allende is the perfect example of what happens when your enemies don't like political change.

As an intentional part of strategy: Yes.

[Palingenisis]

I have never heard of Zappatistas doing atrocities..

I dont want to diss the Zapatistas at all. However in the so many years of their existence they have really at all advanced outside of the base area that they originally took. I think it would be fair to say that they are not engaged in revolutionary war in the same way that the PCP were.

[Dimentio]

What is revolutionary war judged by? Both the PCP and the Zapatistas have failed, but the Zapatistas have not gone berserk amongst the villagers for that.

You should avoid killing those you are fighting for. And Gúzman made killing a part of his "revolutionary strategy". I am saying that it was a great thing for the Peruvian people that the PCP never got into power, judging by the personality cult around Gúzman and the atrocities committed while they were still a small guerilla organisation.

In my world, it is worse to kill civilians "to get respect" than to be a revisionist.

And I don't even understand why revisionism is a slur word. Science itself is based on trying to debunk it's own findings, in short on constantly putting up revisionist hypotheses.

Only a quasi-religious nut would think that questioning ideological doctrines is worse than actual acts of cruelty.

[ComradeMan]

To Pallingenesis: I wouldn't say the Zapatistas failed- perhaps they are not into expansionism?

To Milk: Allende was basically not supported by the USSR when it really counted, they left him out to dry in the end. Allende did not get the help that Castro had received for example, perhaps also because times had changed, but perhaps also because they were not happy with his line. Basically Allende would not use violence against his opponents.


Only a quasi-religious nut would think that questioning ideological doctrines is worse than actual acts of cruelty.

quasi-religious nut - Says it all.

[scarletghoul]

I have never heard of Zapatistas doing atrocities.
They killed people. They only haven't murdered anyone recently because they do not fight anymore. If they did try to expand the liberated territory as the PCP did then there would surely be some atrocities committed in the midst of a Mexican civil war.


And I don't even understand why revisionism is a slur word. Science itself is based on trying to debunk it's own findings, in short on constantly putting up revisionist hypotheses.

Only a quasi-religious nut would think that questioning ideological doctrines is worse than actual acts of cruelty.
You should look up what revisionism is. Most anti-revisionists have some criticisms of Marx Engels Lenin Stalin and Mao, and we also see the need to develop ideas and practice along with the changing material situation. What we oppose is the revision of key things like class struggle, which is a constant as long as class society exists and is necessary for liberation. This is why Mao was not revisionist and Khruschev was- Mao corrected some of Stalin's mistakes and adapted ML to Chinese conditions but Khruschev done away with class struggle by declaring peaceful coexistance and so on.

[Widerstand]

You should look up what revisionism is. Most anti-revisionists have some criticisms of Marx Engels Lenin Stalin and Mao, and we also see the need to develop ideas and practice along with the changing material situation. What we oppose is the revision of key things like class struggle, which is a constant as long as class society exists and is necessary for liberation. This is why Mao was not revisionist and Khruschev was- Mao corrected some of Stalin's mistakes and adapted ML to Chinese conditions but Khruschev done away with class struggle by declaring peaceful coexistance and so on.

So basically anti-revisionists do what everyone does, but uphold their way as the only correct one and call out everyone else?

[ComradeMan]

They killed people. They only haven't murdered anyone recently because they do not fight anymore. If they did try to expand the liberated territory as the PCP did then there would surely be some atrocities committed in the midst of a Mexican civil war.

Who, where and when?

I have looked and found nothing. You seriously want to compare the Zapatistas to the Shining Path or the Khmer Rouge?

Come off it!!!

"We have nothing to lose, absolutely nothing, no decent roof over our heads, no land, no work, poor health, no food, no education, no right to freely and democratically choose our leaders, no independence from foreign interests, and no justice for ourselves or our children. But we say enough is enough! We are the descendants of those who truly built this nation, we are the millions of dispossessed, and we call upon all of our brethren to join our crusade, the only option to avoid dying of starvation!"- Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) Declaration of the Lácandon Jungle, 1993

[Palingenisis]

So basically anti-revisionists do what everyone does, but uphold their way as the only correct one and call out everyone else?

The term Anti-Revisionism came about as a reaction to those pushing "peaceful co-existence with Imperialism" and "parlimentary roads to socialism". At the end of the day Marxism-Leninism/Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has proved itself the only practical way of ending the exploitation of person by person, therefore those who wish to revise for opportunistic reasons are refered to as revisionists.

[ComradeMan]

The term Anti-Revisionism came about as a reaction to those pushing "peaceful co-existence with Imperialism" and "parlimentary roads to socialism". At the end of the day Marxism-Leninism/Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has proved itself the only practical way of ending the exploitation of person by person, therefore those who wish to revise for opportunistic reasons are refered to as revisionists.

Where and when? The USSR? North Korea? Cambodia?

[Palingenisis]

Where and when? The USSR? North Korea? Cambodia?

Yes...I think the USSR under the direction of Comrade Stalin showed the effectiveness of socialism, that it was a real possibility open to humanity...Which I regard as a very good thing.

And yes I admire the sacrifices and achievements of the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the face of such of adversity. They show despite the distortions brought about in part because of the very difficult situation they find themselves in that it is possible to maintain a non-exploititive economic system and political independence for a small country in a very hostile world....I have much more time for them they I do for Cuba.

But isnt this thread supposed to be about Democratic Kampuchea and not the PCP, DPRK or the USSR?

[ComradeMan]

Yes...I think the USSR under the direction of Comrade Stalin showed the effectiveness of socialism, that it was a real possibility open to humanity

You might think that until you meet people who lived under Stalinism... the masses, I'm not sure you can really hold Stalin's USSR to be a paragon of socialism to be honest.
--------

You know what?

It's 2010, I think we should rule an historical line under the regimes and the past and stop being like some bizarre political historical re-enactment society.

Let's talk about movements now, there's no point supporting movements with dubious credentials in the past. It makes as much sense as me saying I support Mark Antony and not Octavian.

The Left needs to look forward to the 21st century and beyond, and current struggles. Not the failures of the past... and we have to be brutally honest with ourselves, there were a lot of miserable failures.

Anti-revisionism is in itself reactionary in a sense that it dogmatises and condemns change, just like the reactionary bourgeois who don't want change or the cappies who don't want change.

Time to move on....

There's no point trying to defend what is basically indefensible, i.e. the Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot and I actually think this kind of thing plays straight into the hands of the rightwing and their endless propaganda against the left.

[Palingenisis]

You might think that until you meet people who lived under Stalinism... the masses, I'm not sure you can really hold Stalin's USSR to be a paragon of socialism to be honest.


Stalin is deeply loved by the masses of the former USSR even to this day despite the now decades of attacks on him by opportunists and gangsters terrified by the shadows of his legacy. He substanialy improved the lives of people not only in the USSR (just think of people getting a chance to go to school for the first time) and outside (the breaking down of horrific colonial domination over much of the globe is largely due to his and the Soviet of his time's achievements).

A paragon of socialism? What do you expect? Paradise to just fall from the sky?

Life is nasty, brutal and short and Stalin made it significantly less so. That's good enough for me.

[red cat]

Well think in India you have the Naxalites who are revolutionary nationalists and than you have reactionary Hindus who would also be opposed to western interference in India. Reactionary nationalism tends to have an uncritical attitude towards the traditional culture of the oppressed nation, tends to emphasis the nation's greatness and indeed superiority over other nations as opposed to opposing Imperialist domination on the ground that it is wrong full stop. Reactionary nationalist also tend to be untrustworthy allies...In my own nation's national liberation war half way through the British offered a treaty that divided the country and gave it a semi-independence to the reactionary nationalists who accepted it and than with British help turned on the revolutionary nationalists and slaughtered them.

Naxalites are revolutionary communists, not nationalists. The revolutionary nationalist groups of India are NSCN(IM), NSCN(Khaplang), ULFA etc which are either succumbing to the expansionist Indian government or being gradually taken over by the proletariat.

[Palingenisis]

Naxalites are revolutionary communists, not nationalists. The revolutionary nationalist groups of India are NSCN(IM), NSCN(Khaplang), ULFA etc which are either succumbing to the expansionist Indian government or being gradually taken over by the proletariat.

Oh okay...I kinda use the term revolutionary nationalist for anyone engaged in a patriotic struggle against Imperialism but you are probably right to distinguish between progressive anti-Imperialist patriots and revolutionary Communists as such.

[red cat]

Yes...I think the USSR under the direction of Comrade Stalin showed the effectiveness of socialism, that it was a real possibility open to humanity...Which I regard as a very good thing.

And yes I admire the sacrifices and achievements of the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the face of such of adversity. They show despite the distortions brought about in part because of the very difficult situation they find themselves in that it is possible to maintain a non-exploititive economic system and political independence for a small country in a very hostile world....I have much more time for them they I do for Cuba.

But isnt this thread supposed to be about Democratic Kampuchea and not the PCP, DPRK or the USSR?

I will add to this that MLM makes up the largest chunk of the ongoing revolutionary struggles, which have proved themselves by raising radical demands and actually attacking members of the ruling class. Other than certain Maoist parties, the only prominent leftist organizations of today that are conducting such revolutionary activities are the PCCC or FARC, PFLP and possibly various anarchist groups in Greece.

[red cat]

You know Red Cat, I am a bit surprised with this stance- I mean, it's like if I started supporting FARC and saying what their principles were and all that, just ignoring all the other shit they do in the meantime....

I did not ignore anything. I am just pointing out the gaps that exist in the process of fact collection and analysis of Khmer Rouge critiques.


The fact that the "communist" regime of the Khmer Rouge was toppled by a communist regime and then went on to be supported by capitalist interests to me shows how fundamentally uncommunist they were. I think they were just nationalists who took on the clothes of communism when it suited them and when they realised they were fucking things up badly, were pretty much despised around the world by both left and right and needed some support.

Maoists consider the Vietnam regime under Ho Chi Minh as largely centrist and his successors as revisionists. The changes of policies that have resulted in the Vietnam of today can probably be traced back to right after the death of Ho Chi Minh.

[mosfeld]

Who, where and when?

If you knew anything about the Zapatistas, you'd know that in 1994 they staged an uprising in which took over several towns, destroyed police buildings and military barracks', etc

[Palingenisis]

You know what?

It's 2010, I think we should rule an historical line under the regimes and the past and stop being like some bizarre political historical re-enactment society.



You what?

In order to act effectively in the world today its important to learn the lessons of the past...Why and how things went wrong so that we dont repeat the same mistakes over and over again...We see this in our own personal lives that you grow and become more effective in acting in the world through examining what we have done wrong in the past so as to correct it, that's how individuals mature and I dont think the process is that much different in essence for humanity at large.

[ComradeMan]

If you knew anything about the Zapatistas, you'd know that in 1994 they staged an uprising in which took over several towns, destroyed police buildings and military barracks', etc

Sorry, I do know that... but I want to know when and where they may have committed atrocities against innocent people, like the Shining Path, or on a grand scale like the Khmer Rouge.

Where?

When?

Facts and stats please....:cool:

[Dimentio]

There is a difference not only of degree but of content in killing policemen and soldiers who are carrying guns and ready to kill you in exchange, and to kill civilians so they won't dare squeal to the authorities or just to get "respect".

[Dimentio]

I did not ignore anything. I am just pointing out the gaps that exist in the process of fact collection and analysis of Khmer Rouge critiques.

Maoists consider the Vietnam regime under Ho Chi Minh as largely centrist and his successors as revisionists. The changes of policies that have resulted in the Vietnam of today can probably be traced back to right after the death of Ho Chi Minh.

Vietnam of today is an economic powerhouse. If Vietnam had followed the same path as the Khmer Rogue, there would have been 10-15 million less Vietnamese people than today.

[Palingenisis]

This thread is supposed to be about Democratic Kampuchea.

We should start another thread if we want to discuss the Lucanamarca massacre which Im pretty sure Ive already condemned and the ins and outs of the PCP's insurgency.

[mosfeld]

Sorry, I do know that... but I want to know when and where they may have committed atrocities against innocent people, like the Shining Path[/B]

The fact of the matter is that these "atrocities against innocent people" are bourgeois distortions and falsifications which you swallow like a hatchling getting regurgitated by their mother, and I’m certain no matter what I say you simply won't listen since you're incapable of looking outside of the box and since you always tend to side with the oppressors instead of the oppressed, the exploiters instead of the exploited, whether it's in Afghanistan, Israel or Peru.

Firstly, no doubt if the capitulationist Zapatistas hadn’t surrendered, and expanded their war against the state of Mexico, bourgeois distortions and falsifications would’ve surfaced against them and you would have, just as you do with the PCP, bought them and considered them holy truth. But since they pose absolutely no threat whatsoever to the Mexican state anymore, they aren’t nearly as demonized as the PCP who, kind of like Palingenisis put it, came closest to bringing down imperialist rule and establishing socialism in a country in recent history. The Zapatistas are not a comparable example, because they came nowhere near the achievements of the PCP, and gave up after 12 days of their “guerrilla war”, and now reside in mountains doing absolutely nothing for the revolutionary movement of Mexico. Of course, that’s probably the reason you support them, because your politics are in no way revolutionary, but counter-revolutionary in every sense of the word.

Secondly, what I like to call "death toll politics" is a liberal cancer, because it rejects class analysis in favor of "who killed more", and are as such, not revolutionary. Tee-hee! Let's completely reject the PCP's proletarian revolutionary nature, because bourgeois sources tell us they killed civilians! But this is just such an easy target, so Im going to have to take the bait. The majority of all civilian deaths in the Peruvian people’s war were caused by the lackeys of that genocidal tyrant Fujimori, and not the PCP. Of course, I’m not going to even assume for one second that you'll believe me, since you're an anti-worker, senderologist reactionary and you reject any source which isn't bourgeois, but for the sake of having actually tried to convince you, here’s a list of charges presented by the Peruvian Association of Democratic Lawyers to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. You can read it all here (http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/rights/geno.htm#crimi).

1) Genocide: Genocide at Barrios Altos, Genocide at Cantogrande
2) Attemped genocides on October 12th, 1992; October 16th, 1992; September 30th, 1992; and November 26th, 1992.
3) Torture of Minors at the Maranga Home Detention Center for Minors in Lima
4) Confinement of Minors in adult jails
5) Death and disappearance of several Attorneys at Law
6) Kidnapping, torture, and murder of students and a professor at La University de La Cantutat.
7) Arrest and disappearance of residents of Villa el Salvador district of Lima.
8) Kidnapping and murder in the city of Huancayo.
9) Kidnapping and murder of labor union leaders.
10) Crimes against: the right to life, physical integrity, right to freedom of opinion and speech, right to health while in custody, right to justice and legal defense, free association, rights of children, right to nationality and rights to private property.

National and International Laws violated by the Defendants: Violation of the Peruvian Constitution, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Articles II, IV, XI, XVIII, XX, XXV, XXVI; in the American Convention of Human Rights subscribed in San Jose, Costa Rica, Art.1, Art. 4 (sections one and 4), Art. 5 (section 1 and 2), Art. 6, Art. 7 (sections three and 6), art. 8 (section 7 and 8), the International Pact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights, the Facultative Protocols of the International Pact of Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Naturally, these facts above do not cover other crimes of the Fujimori regime, such as, for example, continuing the policy of American imperialism in Peru.

To quote the MPP in Peru..


Responding to his allegation that "civilians are killed by the PCP" we ask a simple question: According to whom? The same genocidal government and its armed forces, that is, one of the parties fighting the internal war. We further ask, who massacres unarmed students, workers and peasants who fight for their rights against the law decrees enacted by the regimes of turn, civilian or military regime? The reactionary armed forces. Since the Spanish colonial times to the present, the dead of the working class, peasants and people pile up in colossal heaps. This reactionary violence has been going through during the entire Republic life of the country such as the dictatorships of Leguia, the Prados, Odria, Belaunde, Velasco, Morales-Bermudez, Garcia, and the current one, the killer of children Fujimori: the most genocidal and faithful lackey of imperialism in Peruvian history.

Of course, in light of all of this, Dimentio writes --


I am saying that it was a great thing for the Peruvian people that the PCP never got into power, judging by the personality cult around Gúzman and the atrocities committed while they were still a small guerilla organisation. Of course! It's a bad thing that the socialist revolution failed and didn't radically transform Peruvian society into a just society, because there was a personality cult surrounding Chairman Gonzalo!. Personality cults do not reflect class character. How this kind of liberal, ultra-left and perfectionist bullshit even passes on as an argument is completely beyond me. Today, Peru is still the American neo-colony, with mass poverty and starvation, brutal exploitation, oppression, as it has been for ages now. But hey, hurray for the spics of Peru! The revolution failed and socialism didn't prevail! Long live imperialist exploitation!

Both Dimentio are ComradeMan are reactionary cheerleaders for imperialism. Seriously, fuck both of you.

[ComradeMan]

The fact of the matter is that these "atrocities against innocent people" are bourgeois distortions and falsifications which you swallow like a hatchling getting regurgitated by their mother, and I’m certain no matter what I say you simply won't listen since you're incapable of looking outside of the box and since you always tend to side with the oppressors instead of the oppressed, the exploiters instead of the exploited, whether it's in Afghanistan, Israel or Peru.

Wow, hold on a minute. The fact is that the Zapatistas are still there, carrying out their work and they did not massacre civilians in the process.

Is this a distortion then...

http://icarusfilms.com/new2009/gifs/luca3.jpg


Those dead pregnant women and babies, were they distortions? Because when the US does a bombing raid you would be probably the first to condemn it?

Are those child soldiers a distortion? A figment of our imaginations?


Both Dimentio are ComradeMan are reactionary cheerleaders for imperialism. Seriously, fuck both of you.

We think highly too of you- apologist for murder.

[Dimentio]

I am loving you too Mosfeld. You want to go out on a date with me and ComradeMan? We could have a sweet little three-way.

:cool:

[Palingenisis]

Are those child soldiers a distortion? A figment of our imaginations?
.

This stuff particularly about "child soldiers" shows you how much you live in a comfortable middle class first world bubble. Millions of actual kids and young teenagers across the world carry out pretty strenuous work from mining, farming, shoe-shining to prostitution most of which is very exploitative and a lot of which is down right dangerous....So the idea of young teenagers joining revolutionary armies or otherwise helping out in an insurgency in that context isnt the big bad moral deal that you make it out to be.

[red cat]

Wow, hold on a minute. The fact is that the Zapatistas are still there, carrying out their work and they did not massacre civilians in the process.

I would like to learn more about the Zapatistas. What exactly are their revolutionary activities right now ?



Are those child soldiers a distortion? A figment of our imaginations?


Do you know what the life of an average child in the third world is like ? If the liberation of a child from his master requires him to be a soldier, then let it be so. It is better than slaving for sixteen hours a day and being starved to death.

[Widerstand]

So basically all the people who usually argue that children can't consent to having sex with an older person now argue that there are tons of children who can consent to fighting in an army for an older person? Aight.

[Dimentio]

On a serious note.

It is my firm belief that the likes of Sendero Luminoso and the Khmer Rogue are doing the cause for the struggle for those poor and down-trodden much more harder and that cruel, meaningless acts of violence conducted against civilians is the most counter-productive form of "revolutionary struggle".

There is nothing racist, counter-revolutionary or revisionist about condemning the thuggish slaying of children, elders and peasants in the name of revolution.

The purpose of the revolution should be to improve the lives of those worst off. Thus, there should under no circumstances occur acts of unprovoked violence against the broad masses, and there should be a minimum of necessary violence directed towards elements which are a threat to the people.

The purity of the ideology could be dragged in the mud. Ideologies are not some kind of catechisms, and it is profoundly unmarxist to think that an ideology in and by itself could change reality. That is idealism. What we do is more important than what we say that we are doing.

Revisionism is actually something which is necessary within all of life. It is necessary to revise what we are doing, to find better ways on how to do it, and to imagine different ways to accomplish the goals. The goals should be set in stone, but never the roads, because we cannot accomplish something which has never been accomplished before by sticking to things which have been tried before and failed.

If aeroplane engineering had been like marxism-leninism, and everyone had sticked to Lilienthal's drawings, then there would never had been a functioning aeroplane.

So you could call us racists, imperialist agents, counter-revolutionaries and whatever you might want to call us. You are ready to kill most of the people if that somehow interferes with your vision of a socialist paradise. I believe that whatever we should build, we should build it for the people, not for itself.

You come off as nothing else than elitist fuckwits.

[mosfeld]

Wow, hold on a minute. The fact is that the Zapatistas are still there, carrying out their work and they did not massacre civilians in the process. This does not change the fact that the Zapatistas do not conduct revolutionary activity and is able to co-exist and pose no threat to the existing order in Mexico.


Those dead pregnant women and babies, were they distortions? Please provide a source.


Are those child soldiers a distortion? A figment of our imaginations? During uprisings, the youth always participates. To quote Hiero, in the Warsaw uprising, children took part. Should we denounce the Warsaw uprising?


We think highly too of you- apologist for murder. This is coming from a Zionist who thinks Americans should "finish the job" in Afghanistan. You're a joke.

[Dimentio]

As for teenagers joining revolutionary struggles, I could have a understanding for it. It is very tragic, but at the same time, when a people is oppressed, there are other rules.

What is not acceptable with child soldiers is kidnapping children, drugging them and forcing them to rape their own parents, to make them murderers and then make them join some kind of rebel movements. I know that not all armies where children are a part are using such recruitment methods, but I know that a lot are.

[mosfeld]

What is not acceptable with child soldiers is kidnapping children, drugging them and forcing them to rape their own parents, to make them murderers and then make them join some kind of rebel movements.

And this somehow applies to the PCP?

[Dimentio]

I did not say that. The PCP were more like experts on killing civilians just to set an example.

If you don't see a problem with that, you are either very racist or simply disturbed.

[Palingenisis]

Do you know what the life of an average child in the third world is like ? If the liberation of a child from his master requires him to be a soldier, then let it be so. It is better than slaving for sixteen hours a day and being starved to death.

Even the west during the last northern insurgency here my cousins in the six counties were involved from a pretty young age in attacking the police in order to distract so that IRA volunteers could get a chance to attack the occupation forces.

The images here from 1:50 onwards which shows that sort of thing happening will probably completely ComradeMan and Diemento out...But hey thats reality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkLJIYUr6Yo&feature=fvw

[ComradeMan]

This does not change the fact that the Zapatistas do not conduct revolutionary activity and is able to co-exist and pose no threat to the existing order in Mexico.

Well, I think they are pretty damn revolutionary and good luck to them too. What's particularly revolutionary about killing people, especially innocents? It's been going on for years.


Please provide a source.

Look up the Lucanamarca massacre.
There are thousands of sources, here's one (http://icarusfilms.com/new2009/luca.html).


During uprisings, the youth always participates. To quote Hiero, in the Warsaw uprising, children took part. Should we denounce the Warsaw uprising?

Yeah, during the Warsaw uprising did they shoot their own women and children who didn't want to participate?

Err....... I think you know what the difference between the situations is too? ;)


This is coming from a Zionist who thinks Americans should "finish the job" in Afghanistan. You're a joke.

Ah.... when in doubt shout Zionist! Imperialist! Etc etc etc.. you haven't got an argument here you fucking prick, the only thing red about you is the fact that you've got someone's ideological dick shoved so far up your ass your cheeks must be hurting. :wub:

Where did I say the US should finish the job by the way?

Why I am a Zionist by the way?

Rather be a joke than an ideological automaton that has to pretend to be radical and posture here by apologising for those who kill innocent women and children.

Fuck off.

[mosfeld]

I did not say that. The PCP were more like experts on killing civilians just to set an example. During the People's War, Fujimori and his lackeys set up and paid counter-revolutionary militias, and every time that they'd get killed during clashes, they'd report how the PCP massacred "civilians". With that in mind, yeah, you're correct ;)

[red cat]

During the People's War, Fujimori and his lackeys set up and paid counter-revolutionary militias, and every time that they'd get killed during clashes, they'd report how the PCP massacred "civilians". With that in mind, yeah, you're correct ;)

Exactly this happens in several places in India. Furthermore these militias kill civilians whom they suspect to be Maoists and then blame the killings on the Maoists.

[ComradeMan]

During the People's War, Fujimori and his lackeys set up and paid counter-revolutionary militias, and every time that they'd get killed during clashes, they'd report how the PCP massacred "civilians". With that in mind, yeah, you're correct ;)

In your wonderful mindset does it not occur to you that both sides might be a pile of shit, and the people in the middle- the innocent victims?

Not once... no, we've got to have good guys in "red" hats and bad guys in "government" hats.... idiot.

[Palingenisis]

Exactly this happens in several places in India. Furthermore these militias kill civilians whom they suspect to be Maoists and then blame the killings on the Maoists.

A right wing creep on another forum told me that the Salwa Judum were self organized tribals who got to together on their own to resist the evil, bullying Maoists.

[red cat]

In your wonderful mindset does it not occur to you that both sides might be a pile of shit, and the people in the middle- the innocent victims?

Not once... no, we've got to have good guys in "red" hats and bad guys in "government" hats.... idiot.

The sandwich argument is essentially a bourgeois one. A guerrilla war which does not have support from any ruling regime from anywhere in the world, and openly calls for doing away with all old traditions, cannot continue if its activities consist mostly of torturing the masses.

Also, your stand of equating the right of Israel to exist as a state to that of any other state is a Zionist one, even if you do it from some ultra-leftist point of view. Even if we consider that capitalist relations of production will be preserved or introduced after certain particular changes, these changes are to be fought for if we no one is really pushing for anything better. Driving the USA away from Afghanistan and Iraq is a highly revolutionary activity even if it does not bring about socialism. I am curious to know how you think USA should act in Afghanistan.

[Palingenisis]

In your wonderful mindset does it not occur to you that both sides might be a pile of shit, and the people in the middle- the innocent victims?

Not once... no, we've got to have good guys in "red" hats and bad guys in "government" hats.... idiot.

You seem to have no idea of what drives people rise up in armed rebellion in the first place or just how viciously late capitalism responds to popular insurgencies. You also seem to have little idea just how messed up the world is at present and how it is getting worse and worse as we speak. Communism isnt just a nice idea, its a very real necesscity and one that can only arise through revolutionary struggle. Liberals will always push the idea that there is the "bad" state and the "bad" insurgents and the poor people in the middle (who of course just want to get on being oppressed and exploited in the middle) but really at the end of the day there is only either the revolution or reaction.

[red cat]

A right wing creep on another forum told me that the Salwa Judum were self organized tribals who got to together on their own to resist the evil, bullying Maoists.

If you push for more, he is very likely to tell you how Maoists are halting government developmental plans, committing mass murders in village after village, growing hemp and poppy and engaging in cannibalism.

[mosfeld]

I am curious to know how you think USA should act in Afghanistan.

Here you go, It's the reason he got restricted.


Bob great words and wonderful rhetoric, but when you wake up tomorrow and smell the coffee in the real world you'll also see that there need to be a few things going for a society before any social change can take place that is meaningful. As much as I regret a foreign army of occupation's presence in any country what has been started has been started and an immediate withdrawal would be a disaster for the ordinary people. It's a bit of a no win situation. I would like to see more funds and resources poured into Afghanistan to build up the country and provide basics of medical care and education to start with and also a slow but systematic withdrawal of troops, a strong international and UN presence and also with a decent Afghani government in place. Tough as it is, you know damn fine what would happen to innocent people should the troops vanish tomorrow. You can't even speak of "one" Afghani people for all the tribal and ethnic divisions in the country, I am not going to "vote for a bloodbath" as I am more interested in what happens to the people on the ground. But then, why would you care? You never seem to put them into your equations whatsoever, making bold and sweeping statements on paper is all well and good but what about the actual human cost?

[ComradeMan]

:lol:Well done Mosfeld,

Take one post from a year ago... of course it was also addressed to BobK that said Che Guevara was an idiot imperialist buffoon or words to the effect, was anti-Semitic and said he wanted me to be burned alive in an Israeli flag. The same BobK who, amongst others, was supporting the Taliban.

Funny you left that part out.:confused:

But this is not a mystery, it has been raised recently in relation to Zisek's comments too.

But the difference between the likes of Dimentio, I and others is that we actually show some concern for the innocent people get caught in the cross-fire, this is not a bourgeois argument, it's not even a political argument, it's a HUMAN ARGUMENT.

Now, why don't you find the posts where BobK and Khad as I recall, attacked the RAWA for example?

Nice little trick this... start a smear campaign, but everyone that has asked me why I was restricted has been told in all honesty the reasons.

I wonder why people who tacitly support or justify the butchering of innocent children, pregnant women, babies, elderly people and the turning of entire nations into slave labour camps aren't restricted to be honest...

BTW- what has this got to do with the fact that the Shining Path and the Khmer Rouge have brought misery on their own people?

You didn't even know about the Lucanamarca massacre it seems since you howled for a source and then conveniently skipped over it when it was given.

Your good at spouting ideology but hey, it seems the circus has come to RevLeft yet again because in you we have a perfect political clown, good at theatre and not much else. In your case the clown would have to be IT.:lol:

[mosfeld]

You didn't even know about the Lucanamarca massacre it seems since you howled for a source and then conveniently skipped over it when it was given.

Your good at spouting ideology but hey, it seems the circus has come to RevLeft yet again because in you we have a perfect political clown, good at theatre and not much else. In your case the clown would have to be IT.:lol:

Ill reply to your bullshit propaganda when this splitting migraine-like headache your idiocy caused finishes. I made long post which you didn't address at all, talk about skipping over..

[Dimentio]

During the People's War, Fujimori and his lackeys set up and paid counter-revolutionary militias, and every time that they'd get killed during clashes, they'd report how the PCP massacred "civilians". With that in mind, yeah, you're correct ;)

How come that Gúzman himself defended unprovoked violence against the civilians?

[Palingenisis]

How come that Gúzman himself defended unprovoked violence against the civilians?

He didnt defend the Lucanamarca he explained the context in which that tragic incident took place.

[Palingenisis]

Ill reply to your bullshit propaganda when this splitting migraine-like headache your idiocy caused finishes. I made long post which you didn't address at all, talk about skipping over..

While I think its good and necessary that you and redcat have responded to the reactionary attacks on the oppressed rights to rebel I cant help feel sorry for Milk who obviously wanted to have a serious historical discussion on Democratic Kampuchea.

[mosfeld]

Mods will split this thread soon, I hope.

[red cat]

:lol:Well done Mosfeld,

Take one post from a year ago... of course it was also addressed to BobK that said Che Guevara was an idiot imperialist buffoon or words to the effect, was anti-Semitic and said he wanted me to be burned alive in an Israeli flag. The same BobK who, amongst others, was supporting the Taliban.

Funny you left that part out.:confused:

But this is not a mystery, it has been raised recently in relation to Zisek's comments too.

But the difference between the likes of Dimentio, I and others is that we actually show some concern for the innocent people get caught in the cross-fire, this is not a bourgeois argument, it's not even a political argument, it's a HUMAN ARGUMENT.

Now, why don't you find the posts where BobK and Khad as I recall, attacked the RAWA for example?

Nice little trick this... start a smear campaign, but everyone that has asked me why I was restricted has been told in all honesty the reasons.

We agree on the facts that BobK had insulted you and most of his arguments were counter-revolutionary.

But RAWA acted as a thorough agent of American imperialism under the guise of being feminist, and since the US has attacked Afghanistan, Taliban has been the lesser of the two evils and hence is to be supported against US imperialism.

Having said that, I am still curious to know your current line on Afghanistan.



I wonder why people who tacitly support or justify the butchering of innocent children, pregnant women, babies, elderly people and the turning of entire nations into slave labour camps aren't restricted to be honest...

BTW- what has this got to do with the fact that the Shining Path and the Khmer Rouge have brought misery on their own people?

You didn't even know about the Lucanamarca massacre it seems since you howled for a source and then conveniently skipped over it when it was given.



As I said before, can you explain how such a movement begins and exists without external support, and why do its members die in combat ? What is their motive ?

[ComradeMan]

Red Cat- for an updated discussion about the Afghanistan issue see Havet's thread about Slavoj Zisek.

Re the RAWA- do you have evidence for that assertion?



Ill reply to your bullshit propaganda when this splitting migraine-like headache your idiocy caused finishes. I made long post which you didn't address at all, talk about skipping over..

I suppose you could post some cool Rage Against the Machine lyrics instead...

11th November 2009, 20:19
mosfeld (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=18970)
Revolutionary
bombtrack- Rage Against the Machine
RATM supporting the Shining Path. Cool video and a good song.

Of course when the Pol Pot group was taken down, your comment was a blank post, which spoke lots.

Prick.

[Palingenisis]

Prick.

Thats going to far.

[Palingenisis]

ComradeMan why do you think that the Shining Path was so popular?

[ComradeMan]

ComradeMan why do you think that the Shining Path was so popular?

Why do you think the Nazis were so popular?

[red cat]

Red Cat- for an updated discussion about the Afghanistan issue see Havet's thread about Slavoj Zisek.

Link please ?


Re the RAWA- do you have evidence for that assertion?


They support the US invasion of Afghanistan.

[ComradeMan]

Link please ?

Err.... here in OI?


They support the US invasion of Afghanistan.

http://www.rawa.org/index.php

Emancipation of Afghan women not attainable as long as
the occupation, Taliban and “National Front” criminals are not sacked! (http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2010/03/07/emancipation-of-afghan-women-not-attainable-as-long-as-the-occupation-taliban-and-national-front-criminals-are-not-sacked.html)

بدون راندن اشغالگران و جنایت پیشگان طالبی و «جبهه ملی»،
رهایی زنان افغانستان ممکن نیست! (http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2010/03/07/farsi-rawa-statement-on-international-womens-day.html)

د طالبي، ملي جبهې او اشغا*لګرانو د ځغلولو پرته؛
د افغانستان د ښځو خلاصون شونى نه دى! (http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2010/03/08/pashto-rawa-statement-on-international-womens-day.html)

Let's rise against the war crimes of U.S. and its fundamentalist lackeys! (http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/05/07/lets-rise-against-the-war-crimes-of-us-and-its-fundamentalist-lackeys.html)

علیه جنایات جنگی امریکا و نوکران بنیادگرایش بپا خیزیم! (http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/05/07/rawa-statement-on-the-us-war-crimes-in-bala-baluk-of-farah-farsi.html)

(Photos) تصاویر قتل عام بالابلوک (http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagallery.php?mghash=dc96d38caecd6694eb17fc894bb 73212&mggal=6) | فلمی از قربانیا (http://pz.rawa.org/pznews/video_clips/US_troops_massacared_over_120_innocent_civilians_i n_Farah_Afghanistan/)


Etc...

Not sure the RAWA support the US really.

[mosfeld]

of course it was also addressed to BobK that said Che Guevara was an idiot imperialist buffoon or words to the effect I’m surprised you don’t agree with him, since Che Guevara was a bloodthirsty Hispanic innocent-people killer just like the PCP.

@Taliban: The principal contradiction in the world today is between imperialism and oppressed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America, this applies to Afghanistan as well. Maoists do no support the Taliban ideologically, but view them, and other ideologically reactionary (but anti-imperialist) forces, like the Kuomitang during the Chinese Revolution, as temporary and tactical allies against a common enemy, this case being the U.S imperialists and, during the Chinese Revolution, the Japanese imperialists. Until imperialism has been defeated in Afghanistan, socialism cannot be established.

@RAWA: Khad is completely correct in denouncing this group. The RAWA is a monarchist and imperialist lackey and not revolutionary in any sense.

[mosfeld]

Why do you think the Nazis were so popular? What a cool way to dodge a question.

[ComradeMan]

I’m surprised you don’t agree with him, since Che Guevara was a bloodthirsty Hispanic innocent-people killer just like the PCP..

Racist tones creeping in here... was he really? Or now when it suits you to use "bourgeois" propaganda it's okay.... why is it important that he was "Hispanic"?


@Taliban: The principal contradiction in the world today is between imperialism and oppressed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America, this applies to Afghanistan as well. Maoists do no support the Taliban ideologically, but view them, and other ideologically reactionary (but anti-imperialist) forces, like the Kuomitang during the Chinese Revolution, as temporary and tactical allies against a common enemy, this case being the U.S imperialists and, during the Chinese Revolution, the Japanese imperialists. Until imperialism has been defeated in Afghanistan, socialism cannot be established. .

My enemy's enemy is my friend in other words, despite the fact that the Taliban were of course former imperialist lackeys and Wikileaks suggest in cahoots with Iran, that other paragon of socialist virtue.

You are a classic useful idiot.


But I tell you one way socialism will NEVER be established.... WHEN ALL THE FUCKING PEOPLE ARE DEAD BECAUSE OF IDEOLOGICAL MEGALOMANIACS EXTOLLING THE THINGS YOU DO!!!!!!


@RAWA: Khad is completely correct in denouncing this group. The RAWA is a monarchist and imperialist lackey and not revolutionary in any sense.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary... like their anti-US stance for example.... perhaps KHAD is just a bit embarassed with his chosen username, seeing as the organisation it represents was hardly a friend of things like RAWA.

Useful idiot... truly amazing how naive and stupid you are being over this.

But okay,

All foreign troops and aid workers etc pull out of Afghanistan this week... then what?

then what?

then what?

Before you start with more strawmen, I never supported the war, not once- I only ever said we might have to compromise some things in the name of humanitarian concerns and the reason I was given for the restriction was for supporting the UN of all things.

But you Mao-oids change your tune entirely when it comes to Tibet...
:lol:

[Obs]

Racist tones creeping in here... was he really? Or now when it suits you to use "bourgeois" propaganda it's okay.... why is it important that he was "Hispanic"?
I'm not sure you get sarcasm.


But okay,

All foreign troops and aid workers etc pull out of Afghanistan this week... then what?

then what?

then what?
Then the Afghan people themselves determine how their country will run.

But obviously that's not right, so PLEASE, enlighten us.

[ComradeMan]

I'm not sure you get sarcasm.

I'm not sure it was sarcastic after enduring BobK's rants....


Then the Afghan people themselves determine how their country will run.But obviously that's not right, so PLEASE, enlighten us.

Then let the Tibetan people themselves determine how their country will run.... Ooops--- not allowed to say that because it might reflect badly on Maoists...

But you haven't answered the question...

then what?

Abandon people in a country you've fucked up to reactionary nutjobs and were actually your former allies anyway.

Great plan!

Like Pontius Pilate you can just wash your hands eh?

[mosfeld]

I'm not sure it was sarcastic after enduring BobK's rants.... It was sarcastic.

@Tibet: Read The Maoist Revolution in Tibet (http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet/). You wont, of course, but I really cant be bothered debating with you anymore since you're just not worth replying to.

[ComradeMan]

It was sarcastic.

@Tibet: Read The Maoist Revolution in Tibet (http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-true-story-of-maoist-revolution-in-tibet/). You wont, of course, but I really cant be bothered debating with you anymore since you're just not worth replying to.

Yeah, it was sarcastic.... why did you say Hispanic? Was that a necessary part of the sarcasm? Sure... hey, I believe you....

Because you have no answers in other words....:lol:

Double-standards exude from all of this. Don't try and take some kind of moral highground or "prolier" than thou stance on issues if you are not going to apply the same kind of standards to others.

You condemn killing but you don't condemn killing and you are so blinded by ideology that you can't judge situations without parroting some line of propaganda or other that you didn't even probably think for yourself about- this is not an interesting historical topic, it's not a logical equation or a mathematical formula, it's a matter of life and death for a lot of innocent people who have never got jack shit out of the current system or the people like you.

:thumbup1:

I wonder if you've ever had a gun pointed at you? Or seen a shooting, or the result of a shooting- or seen someone who has been killed brutally? Have you? I'm not talking about your shitty play-station either...

[Dimentio]

The vast majority of unarmed men who Che killed were former policemen and officers from the Batista regime.

[Bright Banana Beard]

And the Exiled Cuban hated him and USA agreed with them.

Ruling ideas come from the ruling class. So yeah, what your point? Che isn't a welcome image in USA, only teenagers does.

[synthesis]

Dimentio, what exactly are you arguing here?

[red cat]

Then let the Tibetan people themselves determine how their country will run.... Ooops--- not allowed to say that because it might reflect badly on Maoists...



The US occupation has been so beneficial to the Afghans that many of them are now joining the Taliban to get rid of it. Compare this with the Maoist tyranny in Tibet that never made them launch a liberation movement from within.

And of course, about the comparison of the PCP with the Nazis... I don't know where to start. Why is it that all the enemies of western imperialism always end up in your black-book one way or the other ?

[ComradeMan]

The US occupation has been so beneficial to the Afghans that many of them are now joining the Taliban to get rid of it. Compare this with the Maoist tyranny in Tibet that never made them launch a liberation movement from within.

No one is arguing that the US occupation is good- that's the point, people are talking about what comes next.

The Tibetans were hardly in a position to really were they? Figures of up to 1.2 million dead... but it's always "different" when it's China or Mao...:rolleyes:


And of course, about the comparison of the PCP with the Nazis... I don't know where to start. Why is it that all the enemies of western imperialism always end up in your black-book one way or the other ?

It wasn't a comparison with the Nazis, it was pointing out that initial popularity means nothing in the end.

When the Khmer Rouge walked into Pnomh Penh they were welcomed by the people euphorically, this euphoria lasted a couple of hours until they were being marched out at gunpoint to giant slave labour camps.

Enemies of Western imperialism.....? Enemies of imperialism don't end up in my black-book, but oppurtunists who use anti-imperialism to seize power and abuse the very people they are supposed to be protecting/fighting for- well do they end up in my "black book".

These issues are complex, you can't divide it into good guys on one side and bad guys on the other, times change and movements change too.

Ideological devotion to just about anyone who hoists a red flag is foolish.

It also amazes me that a movement such as the Zapatista movement is scorned so much yet idiots like the Khmer Rouge are tacitly defended along with others such as the Shining Path.

[Dimentio]

And the Exiled Cuban hated him and USA agreed with them.

Ruling ideas come from the ruling class. So yeah, what your point? Che isn't a welcome image in USA, only teenagers does.

Yes, but it's a fucking difference killing people who have worn weapons and actively defended a bloody dictatorship, and killing civilians just because they are deemed as belonging to the "wrong group", without them having done anything actively against anyone. And I don't give a damn about western perception. What I'm very much giving a damn about is when poor people are killed.

[red cat]

No one is arguing that the US occupation is good- that's the point, people are talking about what comes next.

The Tibetans were hardly in a position to really were they? Figures of up to 1.2 million dead... but it's always "different" when it's China or Mao...:rolleyes:


You are quoting numbers reported by the western bourgeoisie, again. Numbers don't matter. In case of every imperialist occupation that recent, there has been a popular resistance, no matter how much atrocities the imperialists committed. There was no such resistance against the Chinese intervention. In fact, the Chinese intervention was directly helping the communist resistance against the Lamaist theocracy.



It wasn't a comparison with the Nazis, it was pointing out that initial popularity means nothing in the end.

When the Khmer Rouge walked into Pnomh Penh they were welcomed by the people euphorically, this euphoria lasted a couple of hours until they were being marched out at gunpoint to giant slave labour camps.

Enemies of Western imperialism.....? Enemies of imperialism don't end up in my black-book, but oppurtunists who use anti-imperialism to seize power and abuse the very people they are supposed to be protecting/fighting for- well do they end up in my "black book".

These issues are complex, you can't divide it into good guys on one side and bad guys on the other, times change and movements change too.

Ideological devotion to just about anyone who hoists a red flag is foolish.

It also amazes me that a movement such as the Zapatista movement is scorned so much yet idiots like the Khmer Rouge are tacitly defended along with others such as the Shining Path.You have yet not told what exactly the present revolutionary activities of the Zapatistas are. I am waiting for that.

You compared the PCP with the Nazis. I ask you again, which power supported the PCP even for a moment, and why is the PCP being able to continue guerrilla warfare under tremendous state oppression, and how do all these make them comparable to the Nazis ?

[Dimentio]

Aren't the PCP very much dead?

[ComradeMan]

You are quoting numbers reported by the western bourgeoisie, again. Numbers don't matter.

Quote me some numbers then....



In case of every imperialist occupation that recent, there has been a popular resistance, no matter how much atrocities the imperialists committed. There was no such resistance against the Chinese intervention. In fact, the Chinese intervention was directly helping the communist resistance against the Lamaist theocracy.

There was some resistance, but put it into perspetive, Tibet with a population of a few million against China.

Your argument is weak, it's like if Italy invaded San Marino and then tried to justify it by saying there was no resistance.

Against the Lamaist theocracy- so the US say they are fighting against Islamist reactionaries- so every country that has ever invaded another one has usually invented some excuse, "civilising the barbarians"- "freeing them from the yoke of tyranny"...

Whatever you say about their motives, a foreign nation imposed its will on a people that were not even threatening it in any way shape or form. But it's all right when it's China...



You have yet not told what exactly the present revolutionary activities of the Zapatistas are. I am waiting for that.

They're doing good work and trying to improve the situation for ordinary people- that's what revolutionaries do.


You compared the PCP with the Nazis. I ask you again, which power supported the PCP even for a moment, and why is the PCP being able to continue guerrilla warfare under tremendous state oppression, and how do all these make them comparable to the Nazis ?

Where did I compare the PCP with the Nazis? Did I say "the PCP are like the Nazis" no, in response to a stupid question about "popularity" I intended to point out that initial popularity is not necessarily an indicator of worth, like I said, the Nazis were pretty damn popular.

Why does the FARC still continue? Why did the Khmer Rouge survive so long after the 1979 fall from power?

These are non-arguments.

Do they change the fact that the Shining Path murdered innocent civilians, pregnant women and children?

I'm sorry, but if that's what they are about then they can fuck off.

You can't claim to be about social justice and liberating people and then kill the very people you're supposed to be representing- because perhaps they don't like you...

"Ideologies" are supposed to serve the "people"- people are not there to serve the "ideologies", which is something Maoists might need to get through their heads...

[red cat]

Quote me some numbers then....

That is not necessary for pointing out where your estimates come from.




There was some resistance, but put it into perspetive, Tibet with a population of a few million against China. Details please ? Did they have mass support ?


Your argument is weak, it's like if Italy invaded San Marino and then tried to justify it by saying there was no resistance.

Against the Lamaist theocracy- so the US say they are fighting against Islamist reactionaries- so every country that has ever invaded another one has usually invented some excuse, "civilising the barbarians"- "freeing them from the yoke of tyranny"...

Whatever you say about their motives, a foreign nation imposed its will on a people that were not even threatening it in any way shape or form. But it's all right when it's China... Again, it is all about mass support. The US has been such a curse on the Afghan people that a group like the Taliban is gaining popularity.



They're doing good work and trying to improve the situation for ordinary people- that's what revolutionaries do. Revolutionaries try to change the relations of production. Are they doing that ?




Where did I compare the PCP with the Nazis? Did I say "the PCP are like the Nazis" no, in response to a stupid question about "popularity" I intended to point out that initial popularity is not necessarily an indicator of worth, like I said, the Nazis were pretty damn popular. The Nazis had gained popularity temporarily by turning mass sentiment against Jews. That popularity proved to be of no use once their military power was matched by that of their enemies. So they never had a true mass base. Compare this with the mass base of the PCP. A mass base is necessary for waging a guerrilla war without any external assistance. The PCP, despite the many setbacks that it has suffered through the decades, has been able to continue its guerrilla war, and is advancing at present.


Why does the FARC still continue? Why did the Khmer Rouge survive so long after the 1979 fall from power?Because they were communist revolutionaries and had mass support as well as participation.


These are non-arguments.

Do they change the fact that the Shining Path murdered innocent civilians, pregnant women and children?

I'm sorry, but if that's what they are about then they can fuck off.

You can't claim to be about social justice and liberating people and then kill the very people you're supposed to be representing- because perhaps they don't like you... Innocent people might be killed in any revolutionary war. Some such incidents should not be taken as parameters to judge the nature of the whole war itself. A revolutionary war is not a well planned ballet that everything will go on perfectly. Moreover, the innocents killed might have been part of a state militia. In general when this is the case, the fighters on the field try to avenge the deaths of their comrades and families, and often commit excesses on their enemies. This is always criticized and efforts are taken to stop it, but again, no war is perfect.


"Ideologies" are supposed to serve the "people"- people are not there to serve the "ideologies", which is something Maoists might need to get through their heads...Maoists understand this better than everyone else. That is why they do not mould their historical line according to the limit of toleration of the western bourgeoisie and their moderate left-allies.

[ComradeMan]

That is not necessary for pointing out where your estimates come from.

It is necessary if you want to continue the discussion. You cannot rubbish the figures posted and then refuse to post your own. It's like saying "your theory is wrong, because I say so, but I am not going to demonstrate why".

Facts and stats please...


Details please ? Did they have mass support ?

There was limited resistence against the Chinese but they stood no chance whatsoever really did they? Like I say, if Italy invaded San Marino and all four of the San Marino national guard fired a few shots and then surrendered it would be tantamount to the same thing.

Was there mass Aboriginal resistance against the British/Australians?

Was there mass Native American resistance against the European Colonists?

Was there ever a really mass resistance against the Conquistadores?

How the hell was Tibet, a population of a few million semi- to non-literate Buddhists/Bons going to take on China? Answer me that?

You know perfectly well what's being discussed here...


Again, it is all about mass support. The US has been such a curse on the Afghan people that a group like the Taliban is gaining popularity. Revolutionaries try to change the relations of production. Are they doing that ?

The Taliban are just a faction of US imperialism turned on their old masters, it wouldn't even surprise me if the whole damn thing were a charade and they are surrounding Iran.

Did the Taliban ever change the relations of production? Would they do so if they came to power again? Or would they not try to turn the country into a medieval theocracy... ooops... but, wasn't that China's objection to Tibet?


The Nazis had gained popularity temporarily by turning mass sentiment against Jews. That popularity proved to be of no use once their military power was matched by that of their enemies. So they never had a true mass base. Compare this with the mass base of the PCP. A mass base is necessary for waging a guerrilla war without any external assistance. The PCP, despite the many setbacks that it has suffered through the decades, has been able to continue its guerrilla war, and is advancing at present.Because they were communist revolutionaries and had mass support as well as participation.


That's a very simplistic explanation of Nazi popularity- anti-Semitism was not the only thing to Nazi ideology.

They had a true mass right through the 30s and early 40s- of course when they began to lose, they lost support. That's usually the way it goes.

Have you not thought that between the Peruvian authorities and the PCP there is not much to choose from?



Innocent people might be killed in any revolutionary war. Some such incidents should not be taken as parameters to judge the nature of the whole war itself. A revolutionary war is not a well planned ballet that everything will go on perfectly. Moreover, the innocents killed might have been part of a state militia. In general when this is the case, the fighters on the field try to avenge the deaths of their comrades and families, and often commit excesses on their enemies. This is always criticized and efforts are taken to stop it, but again, no war is perfect.


Lucanamarca- look it up.

A guerilla fighter who actually understands things would know that turning on the population is always a disastrous move for your cause. There is a difference between popular support and terrorising people into joining your cause too. Fidel arrived with 88 men... he had popular support and his revolution worked. If the PCP really had true popular support like that shown in Cuba anti-Batista then things may have worked out differently.



Maoists understand this better than everyone else. That is why they do not mould their historical line according to the limit of toleration of the western bourgeoisie and their moderate left-allies.

Stop with this Western bourgeoisie stuff already... If you don't want to be branded as ideological automatons then perhaps you should stop applying such absolute analyses to situations and forming apologist lines for the Sendero Luminoso and the Khmer Rouge, making a laughing stock out of communism and the left amongst other things.

[red cat]

It is necessary if you want to continue the discussion. You cannot rubbish the figures posted and then refuse to post your own. It's like saying "your theory is wrong, because I say so, but I am not going to demonstrate why".

Facts and stats please...

This (http://revcom.us/a/125/tibet-background-en.html) article should help.


There was limited resistence against the Chinese but they stood no chance whatsoever really did they? Like I say, if Italy invaded San Marino and all four of the San Marino national guard fired a few shots and then surrendered it would be tantamount to the same thing.Was this limited resistance a mass resistance ? Did it have mass participation from any area ? I am not asking whether they were ultimately defeated or not.


Was there mass Aboriginal resistance against the British/Australians?

Was there mass Native American resistance against the European Colonists?

Was there ever a really mass resistance against the Conquistadores? I was talking about more recent imperialist occupations, though mass resistances to some of the above did happen. The situation in the modern world made mass resistances possible against every imperialist occupation in and after the later half of the last century.


How the hell was Tibet, a population of a few million semi- to non-literate Buddhists/Bons going to take on China? Answer me that? In the same way that guerrilla warfare is waged against any ruling class.


You know perfectly well what's being discussed here...



The Taliban are just a faction of US imperialism turned on their old masters, it wouldn't even surprise me if the whole damn thing were a charade and they are surrounding Iran. Taliban used to be supported by the US. But now they have popular support and that is why they are being able to fight the US while not being helped directly by any imperialist power.



Did the Taliban ever change the relations of production? Would they do so if they came to power again? Or would they not try to turn the country into a medieval theocracy... ooops... but, wasn't that China's objection to Tibet?
The present relations of production in Afghanistan are colonial. Whatever is going to come after the US is beaten back will be far better than that.




That's a very simplistic explanation of Nazi popularity- anti-Semitism was not the only thing to Nazi ideology.

They had a true mass right through the 30s and early 40s- of course when they began to lose, they lost support. That's usually the way it goes.

Have you not thought that between the Peruvian authorities and the PCP there is not much to choose from? Again, the sandwich argument does not work. If there was a possibility of any better option, the masses would have created it themselves.




Lucanamarca- look it up.

A guerilla fighter who actually understands things would know that turning on the population is always a disastrous move for your cause. There is a difference between popular support and terrorising people into joining your cause too. Fidel arrived with 88 men... he had popular support and his revolution worked. If the PCP really had true popular support like that shown in Cuba anti-Batista then things may have worked out differently.
Popular support is not enough to win a revolution. Had Fidel followed a wrong military line, his forces and supporters would have been crushed by Batista. Not being able to complete a revolution cannot be considered as a sufficient reason to deduce that the organization involved did not have mass base, but the prolonged existence of a guerrilla war opposing all reactionary traditions and not being helped by any ruling regime is enough to prove that it has a mass base.


Stop with this Western bourgeoisie stuff already... If you don't want to be branded as ideological automatons then perhaps you should stop applying such absolute analyses to situations and forming apologist lines for the Sendero Luminoso and the Khmer Rouge, making a laughing stock out of communism and the left amongst other things.Yes, let's abandon our revolutionary line so that the middle-class westerners who like to think of themselves as the great romantic saviors of the international working class can continue with their reformism in peace.

[ComradeMan]

Was this limited resistance a mass resistance ? Did it have mass participation from any area ? I am not asking whether they were ultimately defeated or not..

Yet defeat and failure are a big part of analysing what not-to do again in the future.



I was talking about more recent imperialist occupations, though mass resistances to some of the above did happen. The situation in the modern world made mass resistances possible against every imperialist occupation in and after the later half of the last century.
In the same way that guerrilla warfare is waged against any ruling class..

Sounds like your picking and choosing....



Taliban used to be supported by the US. But now they have popular support and that is why they are being able to fight the US while not being helped directly by any imperialist power..

So they are not also supported by Iran? Wikileaks...

Do they have popular support? Really? Has there been a poll or a referendum on the Taliban? Armed bandits with guns are usually good at instilling "support" in people... that does not make it the kind of popular support we should be supporting.

I see you've skipped over the RAWA too... convenient.


The present relations of production in Afghanistan are colonial. Whatever is going to come after the US is beaten back will be far better than that..

Well, tell me how? On what basis do you make such a priori statements?

Afghanistan under the Taliban will improve labour relations and relations of production, you seem to have forgotten that we are supposed to be fighting for other things too, or do you think girls should be whipped for daring how to learn to read and write?

I've stated this before, and I'll state it again- this is in a sense a no win case for socialism, that war was bullshit but we can't turn the clock back. You would hand over the country to a bunch of former US lackeys turned "bad" that seem to wish to create a state in which practically every socialist principle would go out of the window.

Great plan....

Before you start with the "your supporting" the war line, I am not, I have always said a non-US international presence is needed, peacekeeping troops and the building of lasting infrastructures hand-in-hand with the peoples of Afghanistan- but the way to achieve this is not by handing an obliterated country over to the Taliban.

Until the ideological purists here can actually come up with answers that have any kind of substance as to what actually should happen then I suggest they stop parroting slogans and callously dismissing the lives and futures of millions of people in the name of ideological purity.


Again, the sandwich argument does not work. If there was a possibility of any better option, the masses would have created it themselves..

You haven't actually shown how the sandwich argument doesn't work though... :tt2:ù

The second part is a logical fallacy.



Popular support is not enough to win a revolution. Had Fidel followed a wrong military line, his forces and supporters would have been crushed by Batista. Not being able to complete a revolution cannot be considered as a sufficient reason to deduce that the organization involved did not have mass base, but the prolonged existence of a guerrilla war opposing all reactionary traditions and not being helped by any ruling regime is enough to prove that it has a mass base..

Popular support is the fundamental prerequisite of a successful revolution, without it revolutions are doomed or you end up with Mussolini. Fidel invaded Cuba with 88 men, had there not been massive support for him he would never have succeeded. The Cuban army and police didn't give a shit about Batista in the most part, they were frightened of him too.

When you need to rule by fear then you have lost legitimacy in my opinion.


Yes, let's abandon our revolutionary line so that the middle-class westerners who like to think of themselves as the great romantic saviors of the international working class can continue with their reformism in peace.

Now, you are just revealing your own prejudices, something I didn't expect from you. A revolutionary line is all well and good, but it is just that and life is far more complex.

War is not just waged by the sword, but perhaps it because others are too stupid to realise this that they end up getting their asses kicked everytime...

The Greeks took Troy without storming the gates... ;)

[red cat]

Yet defeat and failure are a big part of analysing what not-to do again in the future.

Very true. How about posting some details about that alleged mass movement in Tibet ?



Sounds like your picking and choosing....

What makes you think so ?





So they are not also supported by Iran? Wikileaks...

Do they have popular support? Really? Has there been a poll or a referendum on the Taliban? Armed bandits with guns are usually good at instilling "support" in people... that does not make it the kind of popular support we should be supporting.

Why are people joining them ? How much has Iran helped them ? No matter how much armed a group is, if it recruits people by force in a short time, there is bound to be a rebellion inside it.



I see you've skipped over the RAWA too... convenient.

Nowhere does the RAWA identify US imperialism as its principal enemy. In the eve of the invasion it was urging the Afghan masses to oust the Taliban in order to "prevent" the invasion. Tells a lot about them.




Well, tell me how? On what basis do you make such a priori statements?

Afghanistan under the Taliban will improve labour relations and relations of production, you seem to have forgotten that we are supposed to be fighting for other things too, or do you think girls should be whipped for daring how to learn to read and write?

Or should they get gang raped by the US marines as is happening now on a mass scale ?


I've stated this before, and I'll state it again- this is in a sense a no win case for socialism, that war was bullshit but we can't turn the clock back. You would hand over the country to a bunch of former US lackeys turned "bad" that seem to wish to create a state in which practically every socialist principle would go out of the window.

So we let them be slaves of America until some socialist party appears magically ?


Great plan....

Before you start with the "your supporting" the war line, I am not, I have always said a non-US international presence is needed, peacekeeping troops and the building of lasting infrastructures hand-in-hand with the peoples of Afghanistan- but the way to achieve this is not by handing an obliterated country over to the Taliban.

Until the ideological purists here can actually come up with answers that have any kind of substance as to what actually should happen then I suggest they stop parroting slogans and callously dismissing the lives and futures of millions of people in the name of ideological purity.

So instead of US imperialism let's establish non US "peace keeping" imperialism over Afghanistan. The Afghans are so stupid that they should not be given the right to govern their own country.


You haven't actually shown how the sandwich argument doesn't work though... :tt2:ù

It doesn't work because a group waging guerrilla war which is nearly as anti-mass as an establishment with support from other ruling regimes, cannot last for long. The very principles of guerrilla warfare fail if it becomes anti-mass.


The second part is a logical fallacy.

How ?





Popular support is the fundamental prerequisite of a successful revolution, without it revolutions are doomed or you end up with Mussolini. Fidel invaded Cuba with 88 men, had there not been massive support for him he would never have succeeded. The Cuban army and police didn't give a shit about Batista in the most part, they were frightened of him too.

When you need to rule by fear then you have lost legitimacy in my opinion.

You didn't get the point. Popular support is necessary but not sufficient to win a revolution. Many other factors together constitute the success of a revolution. So if a revolution is not completed, we cannot deduce that it failed due to lack of popular support. However, since a mass base is necessary for a guerrilla war to exist for a long time, we can deduce that the PCP has it.




Now, you are just revealing your own prejudices, something I didn't expect from you. A revolutionary line is all well and good, but it is just that and life is far more complex.

War is not just waged by the sword, but perhaps it because others are too stupid to realise this that they end up getting their asses kicked everytime...

The Greeks took Troy without storming the gates... ;)

TBH I didn't expect this kind of illogical arguments from you either. Without knowing anything about guerrilla war and Maoism in general you have been posting nonsense about Maoist movements throughout this thread. You should study more before you make any further comments.

[Palingenisis]

The Nazis had gained popularity temporarily by turning mass sentiment against Jews. That popularity proved to be of no use once their military power was matched by that of their enemies. So they never had a true mass base. Compare this with the mass base of the PCP. A mass base is necessary for waging a guerrilla war without any external assistance. The PCP, despite the many setbacks that it has suffered through the decades, has been able to continue its guerrilla war, and is advancing at present.


The Nazies did have a mass base among small farmers, shopkeepers and the middle class as well as labour aristocracy suffering from the economic depression and national humiliation and so resentful towards "big capitalism" while at the same terrified of losing their priviliges or perceived priviliges under Communism.

[red cat]

The Nazies did have a mass base among small farmers, shopkeepers and the middle class as well as labour aristocracy suffering from the economic depression and national humiliation and so resentful towards "big capitalism" while at the same terrified of losing their priviliges or perceived priviliges under Communism.

I doubt how many small farmers or workers actually supported them. They had to slaughter the communists before they could take power, and once an enemy force entered, everything was gone. So their base among the lowermost social classes seems to be more due to fear than ideological loyalty. If it is that way, then it should not be called a mass base.

[Palingenisis]

I doubt how many small farmers or workers actually supported them. They had to slaughter the communists before they could take power, and once an enemy force entered, everything was gone. So their base among the lowermost social classes seems to be more due to fear than ideological loyalty. If it is that way, then it should not be called a mass base.

You have to remember that they marketed themselves as the National Socialist German Workers Party. Their base definitely wasnt among the working class (though it did include members of the labour aristocracy who were opposed to Communism on chauvinist grounds). They marketed themselves as economically radical (and there were groups within them such as the Strasserites and the SA who took that very seriously)....However once Hitler took power he made a deal with the Army and the big Industrialists and crushed the more economically radical members of his movement.

They were in essence an expression of the middle class which felt itself squeezed between big business and international communism...Of course they ultimately sided with big business given their reactionary nature from day one.

[Palingenisis]

http://libcom.org/library/ideology-superstructure-historical-materialism-franz-jakubowski-1936

"The state acquires a particularly high degree of autonomy where there is an even balance of forces between the classes. The absolute monarchies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were strong because the power of the nobility and the bourgeoisie was evenly balanced, though even in this case the state cannot be said to have been independent of the relations of production. Absolutism was still based partly on feudal forces, whose political rights it upheld (even if in a somewhat reduced form) and whose economic existence it guaranteed by maintaining serfdom. On the other hand it had already begun to build on the growing bourgeoisie, representing the latter's economic interests by introducing the mercantilist policies which were needed for the development of modern industry. As soon as the bourgeoisie had established clear economic superiority this state was destroyed and gave way to another, which could express the bourgeoisie's economic domination in a political form. The bonapartism of the first and especially the second French empires, where bourgeoisie and proletariat had fought each other to a standstill, is another example of the relative autonomy of the state apparatus. Modern fascism, too, comes partly under this heading: an even balance of forces between capital and labour puts the petty bourgeois layers in political control, although they do not have any influence on the economic foundations of capitalism and are obliged to carry out policies in favour of the bourgeoisie, which is still the economically dominant class."

[red cat]

You have to remember that they marketed themselves as the National Socialist German Workers Party. Their base definitely wasnt among the working class (though it did include members of the labour aristocracy who were opposed to Communism on chauvinist grounds). They marketed themselves as economically radical (and there were groups within them such as the Strasserites and the SA who took that very seriously)....However once Hitler took power he made a deal with the Army and the big Industrialists and crushed the more economically radical members of his movement.

They were in essence an expression of the middle class which felt itself squeezed between big business and international communism...Of course they ultimately sided with big business given their reactionary nature from day one.

Such bases are quite common with other reactionary groups that call themselves socialist or communist. For example the CPI(Marxist) has a base among the privileged middle class.

[ComradeMan]

Would you follow a dog turd if it declared itself anti-Western and Maoist?

That's about the level of discussion here.

The comments about the RAWA are just "deliberately" false and the understanding of the Taliban and what the US is doing in Afghanistan show a geopolitical naivety that is staggering.

Go to the people of Lucanamarca and tell them that it was all unfortunate and part of the struggle for the greater good so that makes it all right then.

[red cat]

Would you follow a dog turd if it declared itself anti-Western and Maoist?

That's about the level of discussion here.

The comments about the RAWA are just "deliberately" false and the understanding of the Taliban and what the US is doing in Afghanistan show a geopolitical naivety that is staggering.

Go to the people of Lucanamarca and tell them that it was all unfortunate and part of the struggle for the greater good so that makes it all right then.

Will you answer my question or not ? How is the PCP being able to continue guerrilla warfare for so long ? And for your information, we reject most parties that claim themselves to be Maoist as reactionary. There is enough reason to support the ones that we do.

[Palingenisis]

Go to the people of Lucanamarca and tell them that it was all unfortunate and part of the struggle for the greater good so that makes it all right then.

Like all left critics of revolutionary struggles you take tragic or even evil incidents in which insurgent forces took part and use them to blanketly condemn the insurgency itself. I could take like neo-fascists do the war crimes committed by the Allies as a basis to condemn the whole war against the Hitlerites...That is effectively what you are doing.

How do you know that Lucanamarca didnt actually safe more lives than it destoried?

[ComradeMan]

Like all left critics of revolutionary struggles you take tragic or even evil incidents in which insurgent forces took part and use them to blanketly condemn the insurgency itself. I could take like neo-fascists do the war crimes committed by the Allies as a basis to condemn the whole war against the Hitlerites...That is effectively what you are doing.

I am a left critic of the left, that makes me more left than the left- can I denounce you as a reactionary now?

I'm sorry- if we denounce killing innocent people because we are not power hungry megalomaniacs hiding behind the hammer and sickle! ;)

I could take like neo-fascists do the war crimes committed by the Allies as a basis to condemn the whole war against the Hitlerites...

In English please...? :lol:

How do you know that Lucanamarca didnt actually safe more lives than it destoried?

Second point:-

Well I don't, but neither do you- and that is an argument to a hypothesis, Lucanamarca was a fact.

Would you go to that place and say that to those people, in the face? Sorry about your pregnant wife, daughter, sister or your six month old baby- but it was for the common good.

I think not... It's easy for you to talk about ideology until it's your own family eh? If it had been some Republican splinter group or faction in Ireland would you be playing the same tune?

[Palingenisis]

I think not... It's easy for you to talk about ideology until it's your own family eh? If it had been some Republican splinter group or faction in Ireland would you be playing the same tune?

Irish politics is the one thing that I really know about.

And every time there is an argument about Irish Republicanism on a general web forum someone just like you will bring up either the Omagh tragedy or the Enniskillen bombing again and again in every post they make in order to say basically "accept partition, accept the Free State, accept the occupation..otherwise you are a MURDERER!!!"....It gets boring very fast. People like you in Ireland equate national liberation with "child murder".

When the actual insurgency was going on everytime a civilian particularly if they were a child was killed people like you would be out on the streets with banners saying "Not in my name!"....However when a child was killed by the "secuirity forces" (who actually killed more childern than the IRA or INLA) or the Loyalist death squads who almost exclusively targetted civilians than you lot would be silent.

In the same way you are using the Lucanmarca tragedy to attack the just struggle of the Peruvian masses for national liberation and socialism in TOTO.

You should get off your high horse and read this stuff not by a Maoist but by a Left Communist group (not the ICC though!) on the Shining Path insurgency...They make some very good points that you need to listen too...

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism10.htm#icc

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism6.htm#Peru

[ComradeMan]

And every time there is an argument about Irish Republicanism on a general web forum someone just like you will bring up either the Omagh tragedy or the Enniskillen bombing again and again in every post they make in order to say basically "accept partition, accept the Free State, accept the occupation..otherwise you are a MURDERER!!!"....It gets boring very fast. People like you in Ireland equate national liberation with "child murder".

When the actual insurgency was going on everytime a civilian particularly if they were a child was killed people like you would be out on the streets with banners saying "Not in my name!"....However when a child was killed by the "secuirity forces" (who actually killed more childern than the IRA or INLA) or the Loyalist death squads who almost exclusively targetted civilians than you lot would be silent.


Not at all- Who are people like "me" or "you lot"- I don't think Dimentio, nor I would ever support the killing of children by ANYONE- that's the point.

Do you know me? So how do you know people like "me"? Bit of a generalisation there isn't there?

[Palingenisis]

Not at all- Who are people like "me" or "you lot"- I don't think Dimentio, nor I would ever support the killing of children by ANYONE- that's the point.

Do you know me? So how do you know people like "me"? Bit of a generalisation there isn't there?

In war children will get killed unfortunately...So therefore you are saying that people should never wage war?

[ComradeMan]

In war children will get killed unfortunately...So therefore you are saying that people should never wage war?

You have a very limited idea of war and what it's about.

Ideally people should never wage war, yes- that's what we are supposed to be aiming towards.

[red cat]

You have a very limited idea of war and what it's about.

Ideally people should never wage war, yes- that's what we are supposed to be aiming towards.

Should we wage war against the ruling classes of today or not ?

[milk]

If we don't, they will. Or drag us into wars of their own making, while competing with the ruling classes of other countries. They, of course, won't be the ones who are dying.

ComradeMan comes across as a hand-wringing liberal.

[ComradeMan]

If we don't, they will. Or drag us into wars of their own making, while competing with the ruling classes of other countries. They, of course, won't be the ones who are dying.

ComradeMan comes across as a hand-wringing liberal.


And you come across a moronic "bookworm" who has probably never seen someone with their brains blown out all of the pavement...

Would you pull the trigger on a pregnant woman? An elderly person? A baby? FFS

I wouldn't and if I were ordered to I'd shoot the bastard who ordered it and take my chance...

[milk]

Neither have you. Indeed it is because of my bookwormery (is that even a word?) that you have come across as a moron.

I also like it when you are losing arguments, that you will fit in some made-up anecdote about knowing people from the places being discussed. "Do you know any Cambodians? I do." You did the same on another thread to somebody who wasn't taking you seriously, saying that you knew Afghans too.

"I was speaking to a DPRK dissident refugee who works at the checkout in the local supermarket the other day ..."

[ComradeMan]

Neither have you...

Look up Italy, Mafia Wars, and see what shit we had to see in the 90s ;)

Dickbrain...

Answer the question.

Would you shoot a pregnant woman? An elderly person? A child?

Would you or wouldn't you? It's not a difficult question.

[milk]

You're involved in the mafia now.

What a silly question. So you think that capitalism can be overthrown by peaceful means, that the ruling class will just give up their power? You're not a communist, you're a soppy liberal dreamer, indulging in the kind of fence-sitting which conceals a false neutrality. War is bad, but not a word on why people should not try and break the ruling classes of the world's monopoly on violence.

[ComradeMan]

You're involved in the mafia now.

What a silly question. So you think that capitalism can be overthrown by peaceful means, that the ruling class will just give up their power? You're not a communist, you're a soppy liberal dreamer, indulging in the kind of fence-sitting which conceals a false neutrality. War is bad, but not a word on why people should not try and break the ruling classes of the world's monopoly on violence.

Err... no, but when people get shot in broad daylight or from the backs of motorbikes and scooters in the city centres you know... people tend to see the aftermath. Derposaurus....

Now, answer the fucking question, why won't you do that?

Would you shoot a pregnant woman? Elderly person? Child?

I don't think you want to answer this question though do you... and we all know why.:thumbdown:

[red cat]

Would you shoot a pregnant woman? Elderly person? Child?

Comrademan do you mean that you would never shoot a pregnant woman, elderly person or a child ? Think very carefully before you answer.

[Blackscare]

I would just like to point out to everyone, that this thread is in fact far from the second one about Pol Pot this poor forum has had to endure.

[ComradeMan]

Comrademan do you mean that you would never shoot a pregnant woman, elderly person or a child ? Think very carefully before you answer.

Nope- stated it before.

Why?

Would you?

I see milk has suddenly disappeared....

[red cat]

Nope- stated it before.

Good. So you wouldn't shoot an elderly person who is a commander of the state forces.

[ComradeMan]

Good. So you wouldn't shoot an elderly person who is a commander of the state forces.

Lots of those around, elderly and infirm commanders.

But I think I'd just put people on a boat and tell them to fuck off if they were commanders.

I think you know the difference too. ;)

Not at you, so much as milk-

You play the mighty revolutionary yet you would not do what the people you apologise for do and did and then you have the gall to accuse us of being soft, bourgeois, liberals etc.

You're a joke.

[red cat]

Lots of those around, elderly and infirm commanders.

But I think I'd just put people on a boat and tell them to fuck off if they were commanders.

I think you know the difference too. ;)

Not at you, so much as milk-

You play the mighty revolutionary yet you would not do what the people you apologise for do and did and then you have the gall to accuse us of being soft, bourgeois, liberals etc.

You're a joke.

You can't put them on a boat if they have Kalashnikovs, or are being protected by personal commandos. Moreover, if you put them on a boat and let them go, they will again organize more men to fight against you, and more lives will be lost. So, would you shoot them or not ?

[ComradeMan]

You can't put them on a boat if they have Kalashnikovs, or are being protected by personal commandos. Moreover, If you put them on a boat and let them go, they will again organize more men to fight against you, and more lives will be lost. So, would you shoot them or not ?

Well if someone was going to shoot me I'd probably shoot them, but getting back to the point...

Lucanamarca

Would you shoot pregnant women, elderly people and children- including six-month old babies?

Now perhaps even pregnant women could carry guns, but six month old babies? Nah......

Cowardly lack of responses from a certain person.

Now, would people actually like to answer my question?

[red cat]

Well if someone was going to shoot me I'd probably shoot them, but getting back to the point...

Lucanamarca

Would you shoot pregnant women, elderly people and children- including six-month old babies?

Now perhaps even pregnant women could carry guns, but six month old babies? Nah......

Cowardly lack of responses from a certain person.

Now, would people actually like to answer my questio?

Why "probably" ? Yes or no ? If someone was going to shoot you then would you shoot back irrespective of what that person was, or not ? It's a simple yes/no answer.

[ComradeMan]

Why "probably" ? Yes or no ? If someone was going to shoot you then would you shoot back irrespective of what that person was, or not ? It's a simple yes/no answer.

Sorry... I am waiting for Milk to answer my question.;)

Milk there is a space below for your answer.

[red cat]

Sorry... I am waiting for Milk to answer my question.;)

Milk there is a space below for your answer.

Why specifically him ? We are talking about some basic stuff right now, not about Cambodia in details. Let's continue with our discussion until milk returns.

[ComradeMan]

Okay--- you answer the question then.

[F9]

Why specifically him ? We are talking about some basic stuff right now, not about Cambodia in details. Let's continue with our discussion until milk returns.

What is this forum?A personal discussion site? I dont think so...Its revleft, a forum of revolutionary leftists to discuss(however there is an issue there too:rolleyes:)
How sad is to see you running away from the point in a desperate try to justify the (shitty) ideas you have on this particular subject(and probably not only to this).

This is just a discussion not worth having really...I can only hope one day you will understand how mistaken you were.(and i mean the whole "i support pol pot" shit)

[red cat]

Okay--- you answer the question then.

Sure. But before that I have to know what you would do. You have already contradicted yourself once. Now we know that under some circumstances you would shoot elderly people.

[ComradeMan]

Sure. But before that I have to know what you would do. You have already contradicted yourself once. Now we know that under some circumstances you would shoot elderly people.

Grasping at straws here... you know the difference too... ;)

Answer the question.

[red cat]

Grasping at straws here... you know the difference too... ;)

Answer the question.

I see. So you were talking about elderly men, pregnant women and children who were not members of any forces attacking the PCP ? Just made sure, because it could have been the other way. ;)

Now tell me what if such a non combatant was used as a human shield by your enemies ? Wouldn't you shoot back if your enemy was holding an elderly person, a woman or a child in front of him and shooting at you ?

[ComradeMan]

I see. So you were talking about elderly men, pregnant women and children who were not members of any forces attacking the PCP ? Just made sure, because it could have been the other way. ;)

Now tell me what if such a non combatant was used as a human shield by your enemies ? Wouldn't you shoot back if your enemy was holding an elderly person, a woman or a child in front of him and shooting at you ?

Answer the question before you ask questions.... stop trying to worm out of it. The question was direct and simple. You know perfectly well that none of these hypotheses applies to what actually happened at Lucanamarca.

Answer the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[red cat]

Answer the question before you ask questions.... stop trying to worm out of it. The question was direct and simple. You know perfectly well that none of these hypotheses applies to what actually happened at Lucanamarca.

Answer the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will definitely answer your question. But we need to clear up some things before that. Firstly, from our discussion so far, I think we can assume the following points:

1) Shooting enemy combatants who are elderly persons, pregnant women or children should be excused.

2) Shooting human shields who fall under the three categories mentioned above should be excused.

Are you okay with the two points above ?

Now, I ask you, what if someone is hit by cross-fire ? That can happen too. That should be excused too, shouldn't it?

[Blackscare]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST I'D PUT A BULLET IN BOTH OF YOUR FUCKING BRAINS RIGHT NOW, I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE ELDERLY PREGNANT WOMAN!*







*Actually, I'd be curious as to how someone of your age became pregnant, but you both deserve death.

[ComradeMan]

I will definitely answer your question. But we need to clear up some things before that. Firstly, from our discussion so far, I think we can assume the following points:

1) Shooting enemy combatants who are elderly persons, pregnant women or children should be excused.

2) Shooting human shields who fall under the three categories mentioned above should be excused.

Are you okay with the two points above ?

Now, I ask you, what if someone is hit by cross-fire ? That can happen too. That should be excused too, shouldn't it?

What do you mean "excused"? It's not clear.

1) Yeah, because the imperialists/reactionaries/bourgeoisie have whole armies of elderly people, pregnant women and children.
:laugh:

[Ismail]

Thanks to red cat and ComradeMan we now know the dialectical relationship between Pol Pot and shooting babies in the face.

Or at least that's basically what can be gauged from like the last two pages.

Threads about Pol Pot, like virtually any other subject in which learned people can contribute, can be informative. Comparisons to Nazism, the slaughter of infants, and other random things do not help in this endeavor.

IMO all that needs to be said about the Khmer Rouge as far as ideology is concerned is that after 1979 they basically stopped caring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_and_Democratic_Front_of_the_Great_Nation al_Union_of_Kampuchea) about communism (they denied they were communist or that they wanted to institute socialism after they were ousted), received funds and arms from the US (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/polpotmontclarion0498.html) against Vietnamese troop presence, and seemed to lose any remaining popular support by 1990 after which they descended into acting more like warlords than guerrilla fighters. Every prominent Khmer Rouge leader save for perhaps Nuon Chea seems to have abandoned claims to being communist, seemingly even Pol Pot himself abandoned such views in favor of crude anti-Vietnamese nationalism.

"When I die, my only wish is that Cambodia remain Cambodia and belong to the West. It is over for communism, and I want to stress that." - Pol Pot (http://www.slate.com/id/1838/), 1997.

[red cat]

What do you mean "excused"? It's not clear.


"Excused" means that since these may be done to minimize the number of deaths in a war, they should not be considered as crimes.


1) Yeah, because the imperialists/reactionaries/bourgeoisie have whole armies of elderly people, pregnant women and children.
:laugh:Most high level military commanders and advisors are quite elderly. As for children, unofficial state forces, unlike Maoists, have battalions of child-soldiers in their permanent frontal combat units.

We should continue to discuss the circumstances under which you would shoot elderly people etc, because otherwise my answer is going to invoke responses such as "see, you won't shoot innocents, but those shining path thugs did" or "ewww, you're a baby killing scoundrel !" depending on what it is. These are all standard bourgeois arguments for criminalizing revolutions, and I have faced them many times before. ;)

[ComradeMan]

"Excused" means that since these may be done to minimize the number of deaths in a war, they should not be considered as crimes.

Most high level military commanders and advisors are quite elderly. As for children, unofficial state forces, unlike Maoists, have battalions of child-soldiers in their permanent frontal combat units.

We should continue to discuss the circumstances under which you would shoot elderly people etc, because otherwise my answer is going to invoke responses such as "see, you won't shoot innocents, but those shining path thugs did" or "ewww, you're a baby killing scoundrel !" depending on what it is. These are all standard bourgeois arguments for criminalizing revolutions, and I have faced them many times before. ;)

Lucanamarca was an attack on poor innocent people who didn't want to be involved. You see it's very easy for these armed groups to go around accusing people of being counter-revolutionary, but if you are a poor peasant farmer with a family you might also be worried about when the "revolutionaries" go away and then the government come and burn your village down because you are collaborators.

Clever way you've twisted it around... without answering the question.

You've missed out pregnant women and six-month old babies too.

So the unofficial state forces have child soldiers yet the imperialist capitalist bourgeoisie don't? You're not helping your cause much.

It's not bourgeois to criticise human rights abuses, otherwise you may as well justify all the abuses people rant on about here when its the "capitalists" etc.

Hypocritical.

[Noinu]

Why does one always have to shoot someone? Why not just make really good traps, and try and disarm them? Then there'd be no reason for shooting any elderly person (who btw are pretty easy to trip, they often break bones too, so that'll make them quite useless afterwards).

[scarletghoul]

Thanks to red cat and ComradeMan we now know the dialectical relationship between Pol Pot and shooting babies and/or in the face.

Or at least that's basically what can be gauged from like the last two pages.

Threads about Pol Pot, like virtually any other subject in which learned people can contribute, can be informative. Comparisons to Nazism, the slaughter of infants, and other random things do not help in this endeavor.

IMO all that needs to be said about the Khmer Rouge as far as ideology is concerned is that after 1979 they basically stopped caring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_and_Democratic_Front_of_the_Great_Nation al_Union_of_Kampuchea) about communism (they denied they were communist or that they wanted to institute socialism after they were ousted), received funds and arms from the US (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/polpotmontclarion0498.html) against Vietnamese troop presence, and seemed to lose any remaining popular support by 1990 after which they descended into acting more like warlords than guerrilla fighters. Every prominent Khmer Rouge leader save for perhaps Nuon Chea seems to have abandoned claims to being communist, seemingly even Pol Pot himself abandoned such views in favor of crude anti-Vietnamese nationalism.

"When I die, my only wish is that Cambodia remain Cambodia and belong to the West. It is over for communism, and I want to stress that." - Pol Pot (http://www.slate.com/id/1838/), 1997.
It's true, they did abandon communism as official ideology, but I have to disagree with the idea that this is 'all that needs to be said about the Khmer Rouge'. This thread, along with most discussions about the KR, is based around their actions in the 1975-79 period. At that time they were a communist movement (and they proved their sincerity in this respect more brutally than any other communists in history). Quite a few communists later become non-communists, that doesn't mean their communist period didn't happen. There are some very interesting discussions for revolutionary communists to have regarding Democratic Kampuchea.

[synthesis]

Lucanamarca was an attack on poor innocent people who didn't want to be involved. You see it's very easy for these armed groups to go around accusing people of being counter-revolutionary, but if you are a poor peasant farmer with a family you might also be worried about when the "revolutionaries" go away and then the government come and burn your village down because you are collaborators.

Clever way you've twisted it around... without answering the question.

You've missed out pregnant women and six-month old babies too.

So basically you're arguing that the Shining Path single-handedly invented the concept and practice of collective punishment?

[red cat]

Lucanamarca was an attack on poor innocent people who didn't want to be involved.

Proof ? Just because the western media says so ?


You see it's very easy for these armed groups to go around accusing people of being counter-revolutionary, but if you are a poor peasant farmer with a family you might also be worried about when the "revolutionaries" go away and then the government come and burn your village down because you are collaborators.

At the level of oppression where the peoples' war is initiated, there is almost no one who remains neutral.


Clever way you've twisted it around... without answering the question.


The question should be restated with context.


You've missed out pregnant women and six-month old babies too.


Pregnant women can act as informers or even combatants. Besides, I have already mentioned crossfires and human shields.


So the unofficial state forces have child soldiers yet the imperialist capitalist bourgeoisie don't? You're not helping your cause much.

What is your point here ?


It's not bourgeois to criticise human rights abuses, otherwise you may as well justify all the abuses people rant on about here when its the "capitalists" etc.

So is it a "human right" to join state militias and slaughter revolutionaries without getting shot ?


Hypocritical.

:rolleyes:

[synthesis]

Red cat, I don't think you're making the right argument here. The point shouldn't be that it was justified but rather that "the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle."

[red cat]

Red cat, I don't think you're making the right argument here. The point shouldn't be that it was justified but rather that "the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle."

We have been assuming all along that it was like Maoists coming to a village, dragging innocents out of their homes and shooting them, while it is most likely to have been way different. The area in question was dominated by reactionary militias, and a battle had probably taken place.

[synthesis]

We have been assuming all along that it was like Maoists coming to a village, dragging innocents out of their homes and shooting them, while it is most likely to have been way different. The area in question was dominated by reactionary militias, and a battle had probably taken place.

Sure, so why hasn't this been incorporated yet? Maoists are too easily provoked into forgetting the difference between explanation and justification. From a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article, I feel like I have a better idea of what happened than most people in this (woefully off-topic) thread.

1. Paramilitaries grab a Shining Path commander and completely fuck his shit up in the middle of the town, which to me implies that the town would have been known as sympathizing with the paramilitary and government forces

2. The Shining Path says "fuck this town," rides in and just kills everyone, because, again, "the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle" and collective punishment has been a tragically common element of war since before we started walking upright

3. Guzman takes responsibility and gets life in prison for it

To me, it's just that simple. It's not "right," but beating people over the head with it is just ignorant, in my opinion.

[red cat]

Sure, so why hasn't this been incorporated yet? Maoists are too easily provoked into forgetting the difference between explanation and justification. From a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article, I feel like I have a better idea of what happened than most people in this (woefully off-topic) thread.

1. Paramilitaries grab a Shining Path commander and completely fuck his shit up in the middle of the town, which to me implies that the town would have been known as sympathizing with the paramilitary and government forces

2. The Shining Path says "fuck this town," rides in and just kills everyone, because, again, "the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle" and collective punishment has been a tragically common element of war since before we started walking upright

3. Guzman takes responsibility and gets life in prison for it

To me, it's just that simple. It's not "right," but beating people over the head with it is just ignorant, in my opinion.

How many people were killed? Can that be related more to "killing everyone" or to targeting some specific people and others getting killed in cross-fire ? The numbers are quite low compared to what one would expect them to be in case an armed group that big aimed mass murders in a town.

[synthesis]

Can that be related more to "killing everyone" or to targeting some specific people and others getting killed in cross-fire ? The numbers are quite low compared to what one would expect them to be in case an armed group that big aimed mass murders in a town.

I don't know; it seems like it would be pretty hard to hit eighteen children on accident, given their smaller stature and especially given that most of the deaths were apparently either point-blank shots or a result of bladed weapons.

[red cat]

I don't know; it seems like it would be pretty hard to hit eighteen children on accident, given their smaller stature and especially given that most of the deaths were apparently either point-blank shots or a result of bladed weapons.

Some of those eighteen children could have been child soldiers. In other places such as India, reactionary forces are known to use children as human-shields even in close combat.

[synthesis]

Some of those eighteen children could have been child soldiers. In other places such as India, reactionary forces are known to use children as human-shields even in close combat.

I wasn't there, so I don't know the full context of the massacre, not that I necessarily would have understood it if I was. Regardless, it seems glaringly obvious to me that it was an act of collective punishment as retribution for the killing of a commander, but you're welcome to draw your own inferences if you like.

[ComradeMan]

Some ronderos had killed a commander nearby. (ronderos were peasans turned rural "police" to protect farmsteads and livestock etc).

The attack was a total revenge attack of which Guzman seemed rather coldblooded in his statement:

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. That's how it was. In that case, the principal thing is that we dealt them a devastating blow, and we checked them and they understood that they were dealing with a different kind of people's fighters, that we weren't the same as those they had fought before. This is what they understood. The excesses are the negative aspect... If we were to give the masses a lot of restrictions, requirements and prohibitions, it would mean that deep down we didn't want the waters to overflow. And what we needed was for the waters to overflow, to let the flood rage, because we know that when a river floods its banks it causes devastation, but then it returns to its riverbed.... [T]he main point was to make them understand that we were a hard nut to crack, and that we were ready for anything, anything.
– Abimael Guzmán
http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/pdf/TOMO%20VII/Casos%20Ilustrativos-UIE/2.6.%20LUCANAMARCA.pdf

In April 1983 Shining Path militants responded to the death of Olegario Curitomay by entering the province of Huancasancos and the towns of Yanaccollpa, Ataccara, Llacchua, Muylacruz, and Lucanamarca, and killing 69 people. Of those killed by the Shining Path, eighteen were children, the youngest of whom was only six months old. Also killed were eleven women, some of whom were pregnant. Eight of the victims were between fifty and seventy years old. Most victims died by machete and axe hacks, and some were shot at close range in the head. Shining Path members also scalded villagers with boiling water. This was the first massacre by Shining Path of the peasant community. Abimael Guzmán, the founder and leader of the Shining Path, admitted that the Shining Path carried out the massacre and explained the rationale behind it in an interview with El Diario, a pro-Shining Path newspaper based in Lima.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre#cite_note-1

[red cat]

Some ronderos had killed a commander nearby. (ronderos were peasans turned rural "police" to protect farmsteads and livestock etc).

These militias do not protect farmsteads and livestocks. They are a privileged group who engage in every possible activity against the revolutionaries and the masses in general.


The attack was a total revenge attack of which Guzman seemed rather coldblooded in his statement:

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. That's how it was. In that case, the principal thing is that we dealt them a devastating blow, and we checked them and they understood that they were dealing with a different kind of people's fighters, that we weren't the same as those they had fought before. This is what they understood. The excesses are the negative aspect... If we were to give the masses a lot of restrictions, requirements and prohibitions, it would mean that deep down we didn't want the waters to overflow. And what we needed was for the waters to overflow, to let the flood rage, because we know that when a river floods its banks it causes devastation, but then it returns to its riverbed.... [T]he main point was to make them understand that we were a hard nut to crack, and that we were ready for anything, anything.
– Abimael Guzmán
http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/pdf/TOMO%20VII/Casos%20Ilustrativos-UIE/2.6.%20LUCANAMARCA.pdf

In April 1983 Shining Path militants responded to the death of Olegario Curitomay by entering the province of Huancasancos and the towns of Yanaccollpa, Ataccara, Llacchua, Muylacruz, and Lucanamarca, and killing 69 people. Of those killed by the Shining Path, eighteen were children, the youngest of whom was only six months old. Also killed were eleven women, some of whom were pregnant. Eight of the victims were between fifty and seventy years old. Most victims died by machete and axe hacks, and some were shot at close range in the head. Shining Path members also scalded villagers with boiling water. This was the first massacre by Shining Path of the peasant community. Abimael Guzmán, the founder and leader of the Shining Path, admitted that the Shining Path carried out the massacre and explained the rationale behind it in an interview with El Diario, a pro-Shining Path newspaper based in Lima.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre#cite_note-1

Gonzalo admitted that there were excesses. What do you mean by cold-blooded ? Should he have apologized for killing the militia-men in the first place ?

[milk]

I'll have a copy of Pol Pot's speech, at the Communist Party of Kampuchea's 1977 Congress, ready for download at my blog in a few days. I'll post a link to it at the history group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=595), or start a new thread on it.

sio1nh_VX14

[ComradeMan]

The "ronda campesina" or peasant rounds- the indigenous peasants in the Andean region did not support the redistribution of land- so they formed these groups to protect themselves. Funny how Guzman wanted to redistribute the land of the poorest and most marginalised people in the society and also the softest targets....

Nevertheless,

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the ronderos...

The victims of the attack were not the people who shot the commanders.

The NAZIS used to do the same stuff in occupied Italy- when the Partisans blew up a train or shot a NAZI they would take retribution on the local population. I believe they did stuff like this in France too when the Maquis carried out actions.

Great tactic to win bottom-up support from the local population!


Edit to Milk- I see you conveniently and cowardlily ran away from the question that you could not answer yourself in this discussion. What's this feable post of yours about now? Good way to appear academic, but actually you are an intellectual parasite with no principles.

[red cat]

The "ronda campesina" or peasant rounds- the indigenous peasants in the Andean region did not support the redistribution of land- so they formed these groups to protect themselves. Funny how Guzman wanted to redistribute the land of the poorest and most marginalised people in the society and also the softest targets....

Yes, peasants "not supporting" the redistribution of lands, where obtaining a good plot of land is the dream of every poor peasant. Shows what kind of "peasants" they were. :rolleyes:

Of course, these reactionaries were protecting themselves by slaughtering revolutionaries, that is what all counter-revolutionaries do.



Nevertheless,

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the ronderos...

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the ruling classes and their lackeys, let's forget those, shall we ? :lol:


The victims of the attack were not the people who shot the commanders.

Proof ? Or do you mean that if a militia-man did not take part in actual killing of revolutionaries then he deserved to be spared in war ?


The NAZIS used to do the same stuff in occupied Italy- when the Partisans blew up a train or shot a NAZI they would take retribution on the local population. I believe they did stuff like this in France too when the Maquis carried out actions.

One of the other things that Nazis did was falsely accusing the communists of setting fire to the parliament, and using it to come to power. In the meantime they also carried out actions against communists. Whether it is the Communist Party of Germany of the 1930s or the Communist Party of Peru in the 1980s, reactionaries never run out of lies for slandering communists.



Great tactic to win bottom-up support from the local population!


The Peruvian masses must be great fools for continuing their support for the PCP so that they are able to fight even today. :lol:

[ComradeMan]

The Peruvian masses must be great fools for continuing their support for the PCP so that they are able to fight even today. :lol:

You keep using the word "masses"- how many is a mass?:lol:

The argument to consensus is not always a good one too, like I said before- the Nazis were quite popular for a while.

Edit to Milk:
This is not a historical debating society. We're supposed to be revolutionary leftists and if you can't answer a question based on principles sincerely, even if you may be wrong, then you have no business being here.

[red cat]

You keep using the word "masses"- how many is a mass?:lol:

Enough to support a guerrilla warfare. :lol:


The argument to consensus is not always a good one too, like I said before- the Nazis were quite popular for a while.Why do you keep repeating this argument even though I have shown where it goes on ? The popularity of the Nazis disappeared once their military power was matched. So it wasn't a real mass base. On the other hand, the PCP has always been much weaker than the state forces, as is every revolutionary group in the initial stages of guerrilla warfare. Without mass-participation and support such a movement cannot continue. The very existence of the PCP implies that has not only popularity but a true mass base.

[ComradeMan]

Enough to support a guerrilla warfare. :lol:

Why do you keep repeating this argument even though I have shown where it goes on ? The popularity of the Nazis disappeared once their military power was matched. So it wasn't a real mass base. On the other hand, the PCP has always been much weaker than the state forces, as is every revolutionary group in the initial stages of guerrilla warfare. Without mass-participation and support such a movement cannot continue. The very existence of the PCP implies that has not only popularity but a true mass base.

I only asked for figures.

By the way, the Shining Path's "connection" to the official Communist Party of Peru is somewhat dubious too.

PCP-Bandera Roja, having splintered from it in the early 1970s.The "Shining Path" considers PCP-Patria Roja and PCP-Unidad to be revisionist; it has assassinated several of their militants and elected officials.
http://www.broadleft.org/pe.htm

In fact in Peru we find...


Communist Party - Red Star
Communist Party of Peru - Red Fatherland
Communist Party of Peru (Marxist-Leninist)
Peruvian Communist Party - Red Flag
Revolutionary Communist Party - Red Trench
Proletarian Party of Peru
Revolutionary Communist Party (Working Class)
Revolutionary Socialist Party (Marxist-Leninist)
Revolutionary Vanguard (Communist Proletarian)
Revolutionary Workers' Party (Peru)
Worker Peasant Student and Popular Front
Workers Revolutionary Party (Peru)

[red cat]

I only asked for figures.

Varies from place to place. But in general, in third world countries, any guerrilla warfare that changes the relations of production very rapidly gains support of about 70-80% of the population of the areas in which they operate.




By the way, the Shining Path's "connection" to the official Communist Party of Peru is somewhat dubious too.

PCP-Bandera Roja, having splintered from it in the early 1970s.The "Shining Path" considers PCP-Patria Roja and PCP-Unidad to be revisionist; it has assassinated several of their militants and elected officials.
http://www.broadleft.org/pe.htm

In fact in Peru we find...


Communist Party - Red Star
Communist Party of Peru - Red Fatherland
Communist Party of Peru (Marxist-Leninist)
Peruvian Communist Party - Red Flag
Revolutionary Communist Party - Red Trench
Proletarian Party of Peru
Revolutionary Communist Party (Working Class)
Revolutionary Socialist Party (Marxist-Leninist)
Revolutionary Vanguard (Communist Proletarian)
Revolutionary Workers' Party (Peru)
Worker Peasant Student and Popular Front
Workers Revolutionary Party (Peru)

The PCP is the only true communist party of Peru, at least the most prominent one in case there are other groups that are waging revolutionary war. In every country where there is a peoples' war, there are many other self proclaimed "communist" groups whose main activity is to slander the revolutionaries.

[ComradeMan]

Varies from place to place. But in general, in third world countries, any guerrilla warfare that changes the relations of production very rapidly gains support of about 70-80% of the population of the areas in which they operate.

Source please.



The PCP is the only true communist party of Peru, at least the most prominent one in case there are other groups that are waging revolutionary war. In every country where there is a peoples' war, there are many other self proclaimed "communist" groups whose main activity is to slander the revolutionaries.

The PCP is the only true communist party of Peru

By whose definition?

Also it seems the Shining Path was a break away group.

So then you should be condemning them for undermining the only true communist party of Peru, shouldn't you? It was an offshoot of the Communist Party of Peru — Bandera Roja, which in turn split from the original Peruvian Communist Party, a derivation of the Peruvian Socialist Party founded by José Carlos Mariátegui in 1928.
Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación. Book II Chapter 1 page 16.

[red cat]

Source please.

Can't provide source for every place. In general 70-80% of the population in third world countries is very poor and benefits immediately from the guerrilla war. But in case you want an example of more than 95% of the population supporting a movement, see this (http://theviewspaper.net/lalgarh-where-have-all-the-young-men-gone/). They went to join the Maoists.


The PCP is the only true communist party of Peru

By whose definition?

By the Maoist definition. Maoists recognize a group by its activities, not words. There is no other prominent group in Peru that engages in revolutionary activities.


Also it seems the Shining Path was a break away group.

So then you should be condemning them for undermining the only true communist party of Peru, shouldn't you? It was an offshoot of the Communist Party of Peru — Bandera Roja, which in turn split from the original Peruvian Communist Party, a derivation of the Peruvian Socialist Party founded by José Carlos Mariátegui in 1928.
Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación. Book II Chapter 1 page 16.

We refer to the Shining Path as the PCP.

[ComradeMan]

We refer to the Shining Path as the PCP.

Circular logic and blatant bias.

[red cat]

Circular logic and blatant bias.

Okay, we are biased towards communists.

[ComradeMan]

Okay, we are biased towards communists.

Yes... because all the other people who also claim to be communists are not communists in your books... your basis is basically because we say that then it's right and because we are right that's the fact of the matter....

Fuck, what are they "Born Again Marxists"... because that's the same kind of logic that religious nuts use all the time.

[Dimentio]

Great thing to shoot six month old militiamen. :rolleyes:

Fuck the Shining Path. Anyone who is killing infants, no matter if the other side are doing it too, should not be allowed close to any kind of political responsibility.

Why are for example d'Aubuisson's actions reprehensible but those of the PCP acceptable?

Do you view the Patriot Act or the US prison system as inhumane, Red Cat? Why so?

[red cat]

Yes... because all the other people who also claim to be communists are not communists in your books... your basis is basically because we say that then it's right and because we are right that's the fact of the matter....

Fuck, what are they "Born Agan Marxists"... because that's the same kind of logic that religious nuts use all the time.

Claiming to be communist has nothing to do with being a communist. A communist is defined by his activities. Anything else about the PCP ? If not, then this discussion can be continued via PMs.