What is up with the Naxalites?

[Einkarl]

I don't know very much about em', if you you guys could fill me in a bit it would be much apreciated. Also, your opinion of them would be nice.

[Let's Get Free]

Their a Maoist insurgent group in India seeking to overthrow the Indian state. They're not a force for social change, simple as that.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The Naxalites began their peoples war decades ago and have since made headway into establishing bases in about 1/3 of India.They have millions of supporters and have been gradually expanding their revolutionary activity as best as the situation allows; they are currently on the Strategic Defensive. That being said they are in the middle of attempting to fend off a massive,and brutal, government military offensive (Operation: GreenHunt) and are fighting to survive.

For some information on their history see here: http://www.signalfire.org/?page_id=21823

For news on activities within the Peoples' War, see here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/spring-thunder-indias-t132890/index11.html

[TheEmancipator]

Never heard of them. If they consider themselves Maoist then lets hope I don't have to hear of them again.

[The Idler]

How can groups tell when they have millions of supporters? Is it like the SWP, you sign a petition against hospital closure and you're a member?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

How can groups tell when they have millions of supporters? Is it like the SWP, you sign a petition against hospital closure and you're a member?

India has a population of over a billion people. The naxalites has a presence in one third of India with an armed contingent active in all areas which they have a presence. By simple estimates it would have be millions otherwise they wouldn't have the ability to be as active as they are; without sympathizers, guerrillas, Party members, and active supporters they couldn't function. We will likely not know the real numbers until sometime in the future but for now I would maintain that it is in the 2-3 million(s).

[teflon_john]

Their a Maoist insurgent group in India seeking to overthrow the Indian state. They're not a force for social change, simple as that.

yep there you have it! so don't even think about them anymore, okay? erase them from your mind. just stop. RIGHT NOW.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Their a Maoist insurgent group in India seeking to overthrow the Indian state. They're not a force for social change, simple as that.
Based on what?



Never heard of them. If they consider themselves Maoist then lets hope I don't have to hear of them again.

"Herp derp sectarianism, I don't know what Maoism is other than the fact that making fun of it gets you in the cool kids club"

Seriously, they have done much more for socialism than anyone on this website. Anyone who thinks that the internet revolutionaries here are more revolutionary than the Naxals are objectively wrong.

[Prinskaj]

Seriously, they have done much more for socialism than anyone on this website. Anyone who thinks that the internet revolutionaries here are more revolutionary than the Naxals are objectively wrong. I could ask you the same as you demanded of Coup d'etat: "Based on what?"
If you are implying that action with a red flag is a merit in and of itself, then the same thing could be said about the Khmer Rouge or North Korea.

[BeingAndGrime]

revolutionary situations breed communist politics. I doubt that 90% of the naxalites militants know or care about maoist dogmas. people attach to much value to these little labels. the important thing is that there is, in certain areas in india, an organised insurrection against the indian state; if this is indeed occuring with mass support than communist politics organically follow from this.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I could ask you the same as you demanded of Coup d'etat: "Based on what?"
If you are implying that action with a red flag is a merit in and of itself, then the same thing could be said about the Khmer Rouge or North Korea.

That isn't what he is implying at all: what he means is literally what he says-that action in the real world is always more proactive than on the internet. I think this is a pretty rock-solid position.

[Prinskaj]

That isn't what he is implying at all: what he means is literally what he says-that action in the real world is always more proactive than on the internet. I think this is a pretty rock-solid position.
I completely agree with the fact that real world action is more important than armchair revolutionaries doing nothing. But this does not, and should not, apply to group which are not revolutionary, such as the Khmer Rouge. And Another_Boring_Marxist gave no reasons as to why we should consider the Maoist in India to be revolutionary.

[Let's Get Free]

Based on what?


Looking at this sort of thing in history (for instance China, Vietnam and, in its nastiest instance, Cambodia) and in the present (Nepal) will show that this strategy is a dead end.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like when the Naxalites massacre a random batch of police/military. But I highly doubt that they'll manage to achieve any sort of real power gain other than perhaps a semi-autonomous statelet within India. Even if they were to somehow magically take over all of India, they'd probably just do what Maoists in that region do best (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bhattarai-comforts-indian-t160727/index.html).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Important factoids about the Naxalites:

(1) Most of their support comes from deeply undeveloped areas where most of the people are tribals and low-caste. India has more than 100 million tribal peoples who are very much outside of the mainstream Hindu society and modern economy. They are economically marginalized and thus end up supporting the Maoists

(2) This movement has been around a long time (since the 60s) but mainly became a significant force recently, especially when they pulled off some spectacular ambushes against Indian paramilitaries (dozens dead in some) a couple of years ago

(3) They don't have much presence in the cities that I've ever hear of, or with the urban working class, but they have gained some support from peasants when state governments made bad land deals like when the Stalinist "Communist Party" in West Bengal took their land to build a car factory for the TATA corporation with too little compensation for the locals

(4) The party seems to be in a constant struggle with paramilitary forces over both the "hearts and minds" of tribal people and for military control over those zones.

(5) The party seems to have faced some significant setbacks of late including the death of important leaders but they are still a substantial movement in India


If you really want to learn about Naxalites and their activities, just google their name and read the news articles. There are constantly new attacks or actions against the Indian state, Naxalites getting killed in engagements or killing Indian soldiers, etc. It's not hard to find recent news about them.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

This is helpful. I assume it's accurate, but if it's not, my bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite–Maoist_insurgency

A lot of civilians are being killed, and in 2011 they dismembered 10 cops, (because why not?). I don't know if they're worth supporting or not, but I noticed some unnecessary actions.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If you really want to learn about Naxalites and their activities, just google their name and read the news articles.


There is a short book by Rahul Pandita called "Hello Bastar: The Untold Story of India's Maoist Movement (http://www.amazon.com/Hello-Bastar-Untold-Indias-Movement/dp/9380658346)" which is quite helpful in shedding light on some of the history.

@TheMza: In any large scale conflict many people inevitably end up dying, it is the course of the struggle. Worry about life is a good thing but to ignore the Indian state's barbarous actions against the native people while they attempt to go after the Naxalite leadership, as seen in Operation:Greenhunt, where the Indian military has decimated entire villages, is not wise. The Naxalite cause is just and they seek to establish socialism. Their movement is facing hurdles and has a long way to go, and mistakes are made, especially in the mindsets of local commanders who may not be in the right frame of mind, but to dismiss them worthy of support simply because of causalities is not soemthing I would endorse for any revolutionary faction.

[Let's Get Free]

Important factoids about the Naxalites:

(1) Most of their support comes from deeply undeveloped areas where most of the people are tribals and low-caste. India has more than 100 million tribal peoples who are very much outside of the mainstream Hindu society and modern economy. They are economically marginalized and thus end up supporting the Maoists


Dont all gangs recruit from the poorest, most marginalized sectors of society?

[Art Vandelay]

The thing I can't stand about Maoists is their revision of what class is revolutionary in capitalism. Any scientific Marxist can analyze capitalist society and see that it is the proletariat which has the historic task of capital's abolishment, not the peasantry whom the Maoists have always flocked to (due to their ridiculous notion of building bases in the countryside and surrounding the cities); they however, instead of admitting to what they are (agrarian populists), attempt to weasel away from this fact, by re-labeling the peasantry as the "agrarian proletariat," as if their little game in semantics would change that class's collective relationship to the means of productions. The peasantry are not a revolutionary class (this is not to say that they cannot be temporarily won over to the proletarian cause) but a reactionary one; end of discussion.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

revolutionary situations breed communist politics. I doubt that 90% of the naxalites militants know or care about maoist dogmas. people attach to much value to these little labels. the important thing is that there is, in certain areas in india, an organised insurrection against the indian state; if this is indeed occuring with mass support than communist politics organically follow from this.

That same lack of commitment will likely be what kills the movement. That 90% or whatever the actual number is will be all the more likely to leave the ranks as soon as the Indian state offers them a halfway decent deal like autonomy or increased control over the development projects for a favored minority of representatives.

I like seeing cops wasted and local bourgeoisie expropriated but peasant armies will ultimately be unreliable from a revolutionary point of view due to what their interests are vs. those of the militants directing them.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

This discussion is veering off into sectarian realms. I considered answering every point but thought it would be more prudent to link to a on-going discussion on Kasama in regards to what Maoism means (especially since the questions about the Peasantry have already been answered): http://www.kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/what-is-maoism

(Note: Please do not comment on the Kasama thread if you have nothing serious to add to that conversation; meaning, do not post comments like what have been posted in this RevLeft thread, it would only derail the conversation).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I assume that 'sectarian' in this instance means not necessarily favorable to the naxalites?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I assume that 'sectarian' in this instance means not necessarily favorable to the naxalites?

No, sectarian means dismissing their struggle simply because they are Maoist (which is what most of this thread is). Fact.

[Art Vandelay]

The people's war strategy, i.e. a strategy of mass-based guerilla war principally relying on the exploited social base leading to the encirclement of the more developed areas that profit from the exploitation of that social base.

Which in practice translates into making bases in the country side and circling the cities. It completely throws Marxist class analysis out the window as it claims that these 'more developed areas that profit from the exploitation' (which are the cities) are more receptive to the proletarian cause or produce more fertile grounds for developing the struggle. This is nonsense. The proletariat is found in the industrial centers of society selling their wage labor (exploitation). To base your movement on the peasantry has lead to what happens over and over with Maoist PPW campaigns, they don't strive in the class interests of the proletariat.


The mass line, which encompasses four main points: a) learn from the people while leading them, b) serve the people while leading them, c) rely on the people while leading them, and d) practice leadership mainly in the form of guidance rather than commands.

This is some blatantly condescending stuff. The 'leaders' of the proletarian revolution, will be the proletariat themselves; after all the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class themselves.


New democratic revolution and the corresponding strategic block of four classes as the path to sustainable socialism for countries with pre-capitalist modes of production.

The block of 4 classes is class collaborationist; plain and simple. You can talk all you want about striving to combat class alien elements within the party, however don't act surprised when (once again) these Maoists movement capitulate to class interests other than those of the proletariat. How many time do we have to see this, before Maoists start to see the flaw in this theory?

[Art Vandelay]

So what is going to happen with the peasants in the dotp?Exchange the ruling of the burgeoisise with that of the proletariat?This dividing into classes is in my opinion meaningless because a peasant is a man just as a factory worker is a man.Just because he does something else in the general scheme of life than a factory worker he has fewer rights or abilites?

I believe that a revolution(a socialist one) is made by the people(regardless of occupation)for the people not by the proletariat for whom he seems fitt.

Please comment so whe can reason it together.

No, the socialist revolution is the act by which the proletariat (through striving for its own class interests) abolishes capitalist society. You can abandon Marxist class analysis if you like, but then refrain from calling you a Marxist. I'm not trying to say that a peasant is any less of a man, than a proletariat, simply that given their relationship to the means of productions, they are not the revolutionary class in capitalist society and strive for class interests opposed to those of the proletariat. This doesn't change the fact that through the act of abolishing (liberating) itself, the proletariat also simultaneously liberates humanity by abolishing class society; its simply that there can be no misconceptions about which class has the ability to accomplish this.

[Art Vandelay]

No, sectarian means dismissing their struggle simply because they are Maoist (which is what most of this thread is). Fact.

If its sectarian to criticize a movement based on the fact that it is not proletarian in origin then call me a sectarian; I'll continue calling myself a Marxist.

[mxx]

The naxalites = Communist party of India (Maoist).
As they are maoist ,their focus is on the PLGA (Peoples Liberation Guerilla Army), that is fighting outside of the cities.
But you can't reduce them on military activities. CPI(M) is a well organised party. They are organised in clandestine groups, semi-legal and legal organisations in the city. Their actvity in the cities is wide spread: mobilsation and organisation of the masses in the party(most important), sabotage (by PLGA fighters in the cities), several logistic tasks to support the PLGA in the countryside.
They describe their strategy in "Urban perspective - Our work in urban areas" (you can google that). I'm not a maoist, but a victory of the communist movement in India would have a positive effect for ongoing struggles worldwide.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If its sectarian to criticize a movement based on the fact that it is not proletarian in origin then call me a sectarian; I'll continue calling myself a Marxist.

...and I will continue calling you sectarian.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The peasantry will cease to exist after the revolution. If they are opposed to this, then that is all the more reason why they can't be relied upon.

[Art Vandelay]

...and I will continue calling you sectarian.

Why is criticizing a movement for not being proletarian in origin sectarian?

[Art Vandelay]

Maybe because the proletariat in countries with a majority of the pop being peasants is a great minority?Are you trying to say that to fullfill the needs of the very few in these countries(proletariat) they need to sacrifice the needs of the huge majority peasants?

The proletariat in Russia in 1917 was also a huge minority; it didn't stop them from temporarily allying with the peasants to establish a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat. However there is a difference between temporarily allying with an alien class and basing your movement on their interests.


Maybe because it was more urgent to educate and give the majority of the pop (peasants) a decent life than to focus on the few?

And maybe Marxists would realize that under capitalist society that is an impossibility. Capital marginalizes these people for a reason.


So you are saying that in a rev of the proletariat the other classes are just dismissed?Exchanging the rule of a few for the rule of a few more?How is that a just society?

You quite clearly have a very superficial understand of Marxism and proletarian revolution. If you haven't gotten to the point in your political development where you have a minimal understanding of a proletarian revolution and how class society is to be abolished, then I suggest you do some more reading, as well as engaging in discussion with comrades who have much more patience than I do.

[Art Vandelay]

Really,so the peasantry(again the VAST majority of pop in the countries where maoism exists)will dissapear after some a few dudes take the power,just because the dudes decide that and take reforms accordingly.

Where is democracy then?The vast majority of the pop is "reactionary" because they were raised this way,lived this whay therefore they don't know nothing and we will pull all the strings?If the majority rejects the communist way with what right do you take measures against the will of the majority?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Really,so the peasantry(again the VAST majority of pop in the countries where maoism exists)will dissapear after some a few dudes take the power,just because the dudes decide that and take reforms accordingly.

Where is democracy then?The vast majority of the pop is "reactionary" because they were raised this way,lived this whay therefore they don't know nothing and we will pull all the strings?If the majority rejects the communist way with what right do you take measures against the will of the majority?

Yeah, thats what communism is. Workers will also disappear regardless of the fact that they make up a majority of the population in industrialized countries.

[Let's Get Free]

In regards to the peasantry not being the "revolutionary class," in capitalism, there is a problem that hasn't really been accounted for in communist discourse because if it is true then there isn't any point. That is, all of the proletarian insurrections of the past were carried out by populations who still remembered being something other than proletarians. That memory no longer exists... so maybe the possibility of proletarian insurrection no longer exists either.

[Art Vandelay]

Because you're basically saying that if it's not my way (only proletarian) is wrong.

Dude if your not interested in advancing proletarian class interests then why the fuck are you on a revolutionary leftists message board. Do some reading and come back and talk to me if you want, but I'm not one of the users on here that spends their time attempting to educate people. I'm here to engage in discussion with people who have a decent grasp on Marxist theory (I am by no means trying to say that I have all the answers or am that well read) but it is quite clear that you do not even have a rudimentary grasp on Marxist thought.

[Prinskaj]

Because you're basically saying that if it's not my way (only proletarian) is wrong. Well, if another class takes power, then it isn't exactly a proletarian revolution, now is it?

[Art Vandelay]

When have I ever claimed that it should be a proletariat revolution only?So if it isn't only proletariat then it's a false revolution?

Kid just stop for your own sake. You'll probably look back on these posts further along in your political development and cringe. I'd start here in all honesty:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[Art Vandelay]

1)Dude,a leftist message board isn't a proletariat class message board,moron!

2)You only accept the classical marxist theory,therefore my position as a ML is invalid from the begining from your point of view but just because you remain an idiot that only sees one direction that dosen't mean I don't understand the theory of Marxism.I understand it my world dosen't end at Marxism, it evovles with other theories (again ML) that corrects the marxist theory to a thing called reality.DUDE:laugh:

:lol:

[keystone]

lol @ 9mm's ignorance in this thread.

the communist revolution in india is being led by the communist party of india (maoist). they are known as "naxalites": this name derives from the village of naxalbari in the province of west bengal, india, where communist peasants rose up in armed struggle against landlords and police in may 1967, sparking a peasant rebellion throughout the region. the name has stuck to this day. this peasant rebellion was the basis for revolutionary regroupment of the indian communist movement away from the revisionist leadership of the cpi(marxist).

according to an article in time magazine in 2008, the communist party of india (maoist) was estimated by the reactionary indian intelligence apparatus to have somewhere around 10 to 20,000 armed fighters in addition to at least 50,000 active supporters. this gives you an idea of how earth-shaking and deep-rooted this revolution is. it is not only present in the rural base areas among tribal adivasi people (those you dismiss as mere "peasants" not worthy of your time), but also conducts revolutionary work in the cities among workers and students.

any self-proclaimed radical who dismisses the revolution in india or naxalites is either misinformed or a charlatan. research the movement for yourself - it is hard for those outside of south asia to get information on the movements there, but still available online. people around the world have an internationalist duty to politically support and educate others about the world's largest communist insurgency.

[Art Vandelay]

lol @ 9mm's ignorance in this thread.

the communist revolution in india is being led by the communist party of india (maoist). they are known as "naxalites": this name derives from the village of naxalbari in the province of west bengal, india, where communist peasants rose up in armed struggle against landlords and police in may 1967, sparking a peasant rebellion throughout the region. the name has stuck to this day. this peasant rebellion was the basis for revolutionary regroupment of the indian communist movement away from the revisionist leadership of the cpi(marxist).

according to an article in time magazine in 2008, the communist party of india (maoist) was estimated by the reactionary indian intelligence apparatus to have somewhere around 10 to 20,000 armed fighters in addition to at least 50,000 active supporters. this gives you an idea of how earth-shaking and deep-rooted this revolution is. it is not only present in the rural base areas among tribal adivasi people (those you dismiss as mere "peasants" not worthy of your time), but also conducts revolutionary work in the cities among workers and students.

any self-proclaimed radical who dismisses the revolution in india or naxalites is either misinformed or a charlatan. research the movement for yourself - it is hard for those outside of south asia to get information on the movements there, but still available online. people around the world have an internationalist duty to politically support and educate others about the world's largest communist insurgency.

I know full well about the history of the Naxalite movement in India, but thanks for the run down. How this refutes my 'ignorance' in this thread, I have no idea.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

9mm - I'm not a Maoist or Maoist sympathizer by any means, but I think your view of the peasantry and their revolutionary potential is overly reductionist.


The thing I can't stand about Maoists is their revision of what class is revolutionary in capitalism. Any scientific Marxist can analyze capitalist society and see that it is the proletariat which has the historic task of capital's abolishment, not the peasantry whom the Maoists have always flocked to (due to their ridiculous notion of building bases in the countryside and surrounding the cities); they however, instead of admitting to what they are (agrarian populists), attempt to weasel away from this fact, by re-labeling the peasantry as the "agrarian proletariat," as if their little game in semantics would change that class's collective relationship to the means of productions. The peasantry are not a revolutionary class (this is not to say that they cannot be temporarily won over to the proletarian cause) but a reactionary one; end of discussion.

IMO this is not necessarily any more "scientific" of a view than the Maoist one. Marx and other Marxist theorists never pinned down some law of nature which prevents peasants from becoming the revolutionary class. What they did do are isolate material conditions which make the proletariat more able to realize their place in the economy, their potential to organize collectively and their ability to topple the system than peasants. However these factors are not absolute and will manifest themselves differently in different contexts.

To argue that peasants are necessarily going to be a reactionary class seems to me to be turning certain theoretical positions of Marx and later Marxist intellectuals into a sort of dogma. Marxism is a form of class analysis, and that class analysis is going to be modified to fit any number of material conditions. "Peasant" is an incredibly diverse category insofar as there are many different kinds of "peasant" in many societies with differing relations to the land and one another across history. For instance, peasants who live on communal land which is being distributed to private enterprise are much more open to engaging in a political struggle than groups of petit-bourgeois landholders who make a moderate income selling their produce on their own.


Which in practice translates into making bases in the country side and circling the cities. It completely throws Marxist class analysis out the window as it claims that these 'more developed areas that profit from the exploitation' (which are the cities) are more receptive to the proletarian cause or produce more fertile grounds for developing the struggle. This is nonsense. The proletariat is found in the industrial centers of society selling their wage labor (exploitation). To base your movement on the peasantry has lead to what happens over and over with Maoist PPW campaigns, they don't strive in the class interests of the proletariat.


The problems that have emerged in various people's wars don't stem from the links to the peasantry but from the way that members of the supposed vanguard party see that gaining state or economic power is a means for personal wealth or power (or, in the case of some Maoist struggles, by simply getting defeated by overwhelming state power).



This is some blatantly condescending stuff. The 'leaders' of the proletarian revolution, will be the proletariat themselves; after all the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class themselves.


You are condescending towards the peasants as a class but then you accuse someone else of being condescending. It's condescending to say that the proletariat must be led, but materially necessary to say that the peasants must be led?



The block of 4 classes is class collaborationist; plain and simple. You can talk all you want about striving to combat class alien elements within the party, however don't act surprised when (once again) these Maoists movement capitulate to class interests other than those of the proletariat. How many time do we have to see this, before Maoists start to see the flaw in this theory?

Yes but the problem isn't collaboration between peasants and workers but between those two classes and those who own the means of production.


Dude if your not interested in advancing proletarian class interests then why the fuck are you on a revolutionary leftists message board. Do some reading and come back and talk to me if you want, but I'm not one of the users on here that spends their time attempting to educate people. I'm here to engage in discussion with people who have a decent grasp on Marxist theory (I am by no means trying to say that I have all the answers or am that well read) but it is quite clear that you do not even have a rudimentary grasp on Marxist thought.

I don't think advocating for a peasant's revolt is any less "leftist" than arguing for a proletarian revolt, even if it is theoretically sloppy.

[Art Vandelay]

lol @ 9mm's ignorance in this thread.

the communist revolution in india is being led by the communist party of india (maoist). they are known as "naxalites": this name derives from the village of naxalbari in the province of west bengal, india, where communist peasants rose up in armed struggle against landlords and police in may 1967, sparking a peasant rebellion throughout the region. the name has stuck to this day. this peasant rebellion was the basis for revolutionary regroupment of the indian communist movement away from the revisionist leadership of the cpi(marxist).

according to an article in time magazine in 2008, the communist party of india (maoist) was estimated by the reactionary indian intelligence apparatus to have somewhere around 10 to 20,000 armed fighters in addition to at least 50,000 active supporters. this gives you an idea of how earth-shaking and deep-rooted this revolution is. it is not only present in the rural base areas among tribal adivasi people (those you dismiss as mere "peasants" not worthy of your time), but also conducts revolutionary work in the cities among workers and students.

any self-proclaimed radical who dismisses the revolution in india or naxalites is either misinformed or a charlatan. research the movement for yourself - it is hard for those outside of south asia to get information on the movements there, but still available online. people around the world have an internationalist duty to politically support and educate others about the world's largest communist insurgency.

And I'm the sectarian TGU?

[Art Vandelay]

9mm - I'm not a Maoist or Maoist sympathizer by any means, but I think your view of the peasantry and their revolutionary potential is overly reductionist.

I've never said that the peasantry had no revolutionary potential; merely that the class which has the historical mission of abolishing capital, is the proletariat given their relation to the bourgeoisie; would you dispute this?


IMO this is not necessarily any more "scientific" of a view than the Maoist one. Marx and other Marxist theorists never pinned down some law of nature which prevents peasants from becoming the revolutionary class. What they did do are isolate material conditions which make the proletariat more able to realize their place in the economy, their potential to organize collectively and their ability to topple the system than peasants. However these factors are not absolute and will manifest themselves differently in different contexts.

Undoubtedly, however the peasantry's class interests have historically been to wish to continue its rural way of existence, to resist industrialization and to (unless temporarily bought off, as in Russia in '17) to fight for its class interests which have been opposed to proletarian class interests.


To argue that peasants are necessarily going to be a reactionary class seems to me to be turning certain theoretical positions of Marx and later Marxist intellectuals into a sort of dogma. Marxism is a form of class analysis, and that class analysis is going to be modified to fit any number of material conditions. "Peasant" is an incredibly diverse category insofar as there are many different kinds of "peasant" in many societies with differing relations to the land and one another across history. For instance, peasants who live on communal land which is being distributed to private enterprise are much more open to engaging in a political struggle than groups of petit-bourgeois landholders who make a moderate income selling their produce on their own.

Are there any examples of this in the Naxalite controlled territory?


The problems that have emerged in various people's wars don't stem from the links to the peasantry but from the way that members of the supposed vanguard party see that gaining state or economic power is a means for personal wealth or power (or, in the case of some Maoist struggles, by simply getting defeated by overwhelming state power).

You, in all honesty, don't see class collaboration (not simply with the peasantry mind you), as a reason why Maoists groups, upon successful campaigns have not continued no with the dismantlement of capitalist society? Its merely the old notion of 'power corrupts'?


You are condescending towards the peasants as a class but then you accuse someone else of being condescending. It's condescending to say that the proletariat must be led, but materially necessary to say that the peasants must be led?

The only class capable of abolishing capital is the proletariat; so yes if the peasantry wants to play a progressive role in a socialist revolution, it will be one that is tailing the proletariat; exactly the same role members of other classes will take if the decide to defect from their camps and join the proletarian revolution.

Am I really the poster in this thread who you have a theoretical bone to pick with, more than others? Or are you simply standing up for those, who can't put forth a coherent theoretical argument. The person I was engaging in polemics with was spouting nonsense and you know it, even if I perhaps was taking and overly reductionist view of things.

[Paul Pott]

They're a peasant guerrilla engaged in a Maoist people's war. They won't bring socialism, but are a progressive force nonetheless.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Dont all gangs recruit from the poorest, most marginalized sectors of society?

Because Karl Marx was all about scoffing at the poor

[Os Cangaceiros]

according to an article in time magazine in 2008, the communist party of india (maoist) was estimated by the reactionary indian intelligence apparatus to have somewhere around 10 to 20,000 armed fighters in addition to at least 50,000 active supporters. this gives you an idea of how earth-shaking and deep-rooted this revolution is.


educate others about the world's largest communist insurgency.

FARC had more combatants than that in 2008. ;)

[Paul Pott]

FARC had more combatants than that in 2008. ;)

FARC also has more money and more weapons.

[Let's Get Free]

Because Karl Marx was all about scoffing at the poor

How did you deduce that I was "scoffing at the poor?" I am simply saying that the Naxalites are no different from any other gang in that they use the poor for their own ends.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

And I'm the sectarian TGU?


There are certain segments of the 'left,' which I don't consider to be proletarian in nature, ie: Marxism-Leninism; Marxism-Leninism-Maoism


Here's a good hit if you are sectarian are not. You've said before (whether it was in this thread or another I forget) that Maoism isn't a proletarian ideology worth engaging.

Hey look, proletarians
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTk09im8Z1CmXc_jEiP45eZal_CzOiLM M_LhkYYf1OtAJLYS4loaw
More proletarians

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQa8dKQ1NMMIG-GKeQuoX26vYT8VkIldrJCdoOILoEnBFKmqIIlBQ

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmgdzZ3g5Y5d-pmc3v0Zko-aFKHVFahUkltBXt1XJH-WBfkk6O
Peasantry, but considering the views you've expressed before you don't count them as properly human, they're just the pet dogs that the proletariat keeps around until they get old and smelly and they have to be put down. And of course they are fun to kick around ever once and a while when you get bored.

Now, please 9MM, tell me where are the proletarians that advocate your pure Orthodox Marxism?

Are they hiding?

Are they invisible?

Or do they not exist at all.

Maybe, and just maybe, it's because your Orthodox Marxism is a century year old and is no longer relevant to the modern world.

Maybe, just maybe, it is because it is wrong, and one of the ideologies that exists in the real world is right. It might not be Maoism, it might not be Marxist Leninism, heck it might even be Trotskyism or anarchism. Heck maybe even those Tiqqun wack jobs might be one to something, though they only seem to exist in Greece.

Now my point isn't that the lack of supporters means that your ideology is inherently wrong, because after all there was a time when Marxism was it's self an irrelevant sect battling utopian sects. However my point is that you simply can't dismiss us. We are here and we are here to stay, and no level of you calling us "non-proletarian" will make us go away.

So, stop denying your support for a group in the real world for sectarian reasons. Don't claim it's because of human rights abuses, because we all know that Lenin was a monster himself in comparision, but most of all, stop saying asinine shit about other forms of Marxism just because they defy your dogma. Try actually learning what Marxist-Leninist-Maoism is. Do you need some help? Fine, no problem at all! I will gladly point you to some resources so you can study. Heck, maybe you might be right, maybe there are flaws in our ideology that we would appreciate if you could point out! But until then stop making a fool of yourself.


Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?

It won' t do!

It won't do!

You must investigate!

You must not talk nonsense!

[Art Vandelay]

Here's a good hit if you are sectarian are not. You've said before (whether it was in this thread or another I forget) that Maoism isn't a proletarian ideology worth engaging.

Haha you must have alot of time on you're hands if you're willing to dig through my old posts to try and score points in an exchange. You could of just asked me whether or not I considered them proletarian ideologies and I would of answered: no I do not. Also quit spamming the boards with your pictures of fucking rallies.


Peasantry, but considering the views you've expressed before you don't count them as properly human,

Show me where I said that? You can't cause you're a fucking liar. I never once expressed anything like that, but by all means continue building up strawmen.


they're just the pet dogs that the proletariat keeps around until they get old and smelly and they have to be put down. And of course they are fun to kick around ever once and a while when you get bored.

Wow imagine that, another strawman. If you'd re-read the thread, I made it explicitly clear that once the proletariat succeeds in its historical task of abolishing itself, it also succeeds in liberating all of humanity (this even includes the bourgeoisie) but instead of dealing with what I'm actually saying, you resort to moralistic fucking arguments about how I hold the peasantry in contempt. This has nothing to do with morals, or which class I like best (in all honesty I want to live on a farm when I get enough money to purchase land; imagine that?) its simply a scientific analysis at which class is revolutionary in capitalist society. Its fucking pathetic how low you're stooping here.


Now, please 9MM, tell me where are the proletarians that advocate your pure Orthodox Marxism?

Are they hiding?

Are they invisible?

Or do they not exist at all.

Maybe, and just maybe, it's because your Orthodox Marxism is a century year old and is no longer relevant to the modern world.

If what you say below is true:


Now my point isn't that the lack of supporters means that your ideology is inherently wrong, because after all there was a time when Marxism was it's self an irrelevant sect battling utopian sects.

Then why even bring this up?


So, stop denying your support for a group in the real world for sectarian reasons. Don't claim it's because of human rights abuses, because we all know that Lenin was a monster himself in comparision, but most of all, stop saying asinine shit about other forms of Marxism just because they defy your dogma. Try actually learning what Marxist-Leninist-Maoism is. Do you need some help? Fine, no problem at all! I will gladly point you to some resources so you can study. Heck, maybe you might be right, maybe there are flaws in our ideology that we would appreciate if you could point out! But until then stop making a fool of yourself.

Yeah maybe you could address the critique I brought up earlier in this thread about 3 cornerstones of Maoist philosophy; that conveniently, no Maoist bothered to acknowledge. Can you read? Do you need some help? If so I can gladly point you in the right direction; until then stop making a fool of yourself.

[Quail]

Please try to keep the discussion civil guys, especially since this is the Learning forum.

[Tim Cornelis]

The precondition for a social revolution is institutions of popular power, councils, committees, communes, and democratic participation from below. In contrast, when a minority of guerrillas wages war for political power without institutions of political power this cannot lead to liberation and emancipation of the popular classes. Whatever movement builds institutions of popular counter-power from below, I can support, critically at least. Be it the Party of Workers in Kurdistan, the Zapatista Movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo, Maoists, Leninists, anarchists, non-specified, or whomever. The degree to which I critically support a movement depends on unjustified actions such as massacres, executions, ill treatment of the population, etc.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxis[t] said the Naxalites did indeed construct and have constructed such popular institutions, in which case I would critically support them. However, I could not find any source. I could find information on people's courts and blowing up infrastructure, but nothing on the alternative counter-political structure.

Unless someone can provide verifiable information on the political counter-power structure, I can only conclude that they are not a revolutionary force: they are a minority and them capturing political power can only lead to subsequent minority rule.



according to an article in time magazine in 2008, the communist party of india (maoist) was estimated by the reactionary indian intelligence apparatus to have somewhere around 10 to 20,000 armed fighters in addition to at least 50,000 active supporters. this gives you an idea of how earth-shaking and deep-rooted this revolution is

This is actually quite small. A country with 1 billion people, with 20,000 armed men and 50,000 active supports, compared to 53 million people in South Africa, with the Abahlali baseMjondolo having 25,000 members and thousands of (active) sympathisers and supporters; Mexico with 130 million people, and the Zapatistas mobilising 40,000 people for a demonstration in a state of 4,000,000; or the Koma Civaken Kurdistan whose armed wings they claim has some 20,000 armed men and women in an area populated by 30 million people, and many thousands of active supports in Kurdistan, as well as Europe.



any self-proclaimed radical who dismisses the revolution in india or naxalites is either misinformed or a charlatan. research the movement for yourself - it is hard for those outside of south asia to get information on the movements there, but still available online. people around the world have an internationalist duty to politically support and educate others about the world's largest communist insurgency.

I couldn't find any information that would prove the Naxalites are a revolutionary force. Maybe you have, which I'm really interested in. I don't think I'm a charlatan, so I must be misinformed.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I've never said that the peasantry had no revolutionary potential; merely that the class which has the historical mission of abolishing capital, is the proletariat given their relation to the bourgeoisie; would you dispute this?


I would agree with this. However the role of the peasantry has changed substantially since Marx's time and the time of the Russian revolution, especially with the large-scale privatization of the commons in the developing world, and the fact that the lines between workers and peasants are increasingly blurred (as in Mexico, where peasants are forced to migrate and become factory workers out of economic necessity, while supporting their families which continue to work as peasants)



Undoubtedly, however the peasantry's class interests have historically been to wish to continue its rural way of existence, to resist industrialization and to (unless temporarily bought off, as in Russia in '17) to fight for its class interests which have been opposed to proletarian class interests.
This is true in many cases. However peasants around the world relate to the global market and landowners in varying ways, and in some contexts the peasants will see their interests much more in line with the workers than in others.



Are there any examples of this in the Naxalite controlled territory?
I was thinking specifically of cases in Latin America, however there are cases of people coming over to the Naxalites for similar reasons - I'm thinking of the opposition to a car factory by West Bengali peasants which the Maoists were using to agitate against the CPI-M government.

Another interesting example, not in India but Latin America, is the recent takeover of a Palm Oil plantation in Honduras. Peasants who lost their right to farm on collective land which was sold without their permission to plantation owners took up arms and seized the agricultural means of production, despite armed opposition from the state and from plantation owners alike. It's not a socialist revolution, but it's an example of how peasants in the modern global economy are increasingly forced to take the kinds of actions which could be a part of a broader socialist movement. The problem in the case of Honduras isn't the fact that it is the peasants who took the land and not workers, but in the fact that there is no mass organization which can unite the struggles of these peasants with that of the workers.



You, in all honesty, don't see class collaboration (not simply with the peasantry mind you), as a reason why Maoists groups, upon successful campaigns have not continued no with the dismantlement of capitalist society? Its merely the old notion of 'power corrupts'?
I would say that class collaboration with the bourgeoisie creates economic conditions where there is a strong incentive for so-called "revolutionaries" to become bourgeois themselves. This seems to have happened in both China and Nepal. So it is an issue of class collaboration, but with those who own the MoP more than with the peasants.



The only class capable of abolishing capital is the proletariat; so yes if the peasantry wants to play a progressive role in a socialist revolution, it will be one that is tailing the proletariat; exactly the same role members of other classes will take if the decide to defect from their camps and join the proletarian revolution.
The peasants will come along with a socialist revolution more easily than the petit bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie because their class interests are, generally speaking, going to be more in line with a revolution.



Am I really the poster in this thread who you have a theoretical bone to pick with, more than others? Or are you simply standing up for those, who can't put forth a coherent theoretical argument. The person I was engaging in polemics with was spouting nonsense and you know it, even if I perhaps was taking and overly reductionist view of things.I do like to argue devil's advocate - as I said I'm no Maoist or Maoist sympathizer - and in some respects yes that is what I am doing. However I am leery of dismissing the revolutionary potential of the peasantry in general - not because I think that they can take the place of the working class, but because in many parts of the world their class interests will be directly in line with a socio-economic revolution, whether they know it or not. I'm also not such a pessimist about the ability of peasants to initiate a revolution in certain circumstances, especially when the commons which they need to utilize to survive are under threat from the efforts of international capital.

[maskerade]

ok. am i honestly the only one that thinks that arguments that go along the lines of 'well, according to what has happened in the past, this present phenomenon is bad' is absurdly illogical? if you want to make this kind of argument, please demonstrate how the conditions and circumstances that the naxalite movement faces today are at all similar to the movements that have happened in the past. honestly, the contemporary form of capitalism and neo-colonialism/imperialism that has manifested itself in India is unforeseen throughout history. there is no comparison.

this is typical of the idiotic dogma that permeates large sections of 'leftist' thought, and is indeed the exact same type of argument made when liberals claim that 'communism in the past led to extreme atrocities and therefore should be discredited'. if you want to criticize the naxalites, do so by critiquing their actual politics rather than abstractions based upon some sort of historical legacy you perceive the movement to be continuing.

this idea that historical developments happen in a linear fashion is eurocentric (though this is a touchy subject on this forum; for some reason people here have a strange aversion to post-colonial theory) and not at all useful for understanding the present, in my opinion.

the naxalites, if you'll allow me to be simplistic, are fighting for self-determination and an end to the current economic system in place in india. in other words, they want to empower disenfranchised people and make them in charge of their own 'development'. if some enlightened, proper 'leftist' could explain to me why this is a bad thing, i would be extremely grateful.

[Os Cangaceiros]

ok. am i honestly the only one that thinks that arguments that go along the lines of 'well, according to what has happened in the past, this present phenomenon is bad' is absurdly illogical? if you want to make this kind of argument, please demonstrate how the conditions and circumstances that the naxalite movement faces today are at all similar to the movements that have happened in the past. honestly, the contemporary form of capitalism and neo-colonialism/imperialism that has manifested itself in India is unforeseen throughout history. there is no comparison.

this is typical of the idiotic dogma that permeates large sections of 'leftist' thought, and is indeed the exact same type of argument made when liberals claim that 'communism in the past led to extreme atrocities and therefore should be discredited'. if you want to criticize the naxalites, do so by critiquing their actual politics rather than abstractions based upon some sort of historical legacy you perceive the movement to be continuing.

this idea that historical developments happen in a linear fashion is eurocentric (though this is a touchy subject on this forum; for some reason people here have a strange aversion to post-colonial theory) and not at all useful for understanding the present, in my opinion.

If you're operating under a specific set of ideas and tactics, and those ideas/tactics have consistently led to unsatisfactory results, is that not something to take note of? Is there nothing to learn from the past? Or should we ignore all that and just say "it'll be different this time"?

[maskerade]

If you're operating under a specific set of ideas and tactics, and those ideas/tactics have consistently led to unsatisfactory results, is that not something to take note of? Is there nothing to learn from the past? Or should we ignore all that and just say "it'll be different this time"?

the amount of variables that have to be taken into consideration are so numerous that i personally feel that placing movements like this into neat theoretical boxes does a disservice to proper analysis. also, saying that 'it will be different this time' does not mean that there is nothing to learn from the past. my point was that the conditions under which the naxalites operate have not existed previously and therefore to dismiss them based upon what happened in the past doesn't make any sense. i fail to see the difference between 'maoism in the past failed and and led to unsatisfactory results so it should fuck off and die' and 'marxism in the past failed and led to unsatisfactory results so it should fuck off and die'.

i should admit that my previous sentence is a rhetorical point; obviously I realize that maoism cannot be so easily contrasted to marxism as a whole and my language is intentionally provocative. nevertheless, we should all have a certain degree of reflexivity that allows us to recognize the fact that 1) we do not have adequate information regarding the ideas and tactics that govern the naxalite movement in order for us to make an absolute judgment about them and 2) the failure of ideas in the past does not preclude failure in the present or future - the structural differences are so vast that only superficial comparisons can be made and i don't think i'm crazy to suggest that such comparisons offer only the slightest bit of insight into a complex process

[keystone]

The precondition for a social revolution is institutions of popular power, councils, committees, communes, and democratic participation from below. In contrast, when a minority of guerrillas wages war for political power without institutions of political power this cannot lead to liberation and emancipation of the popular classes. Whatever movement builds institutions of popular counter-power from below, I can support, critically at least. Be it the Party of Workers in Kurdistan, the Zapatista Movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo, Maoists, Leninists, anarchists, non-specified, or whomever. The degree to which I critically support a movement depends on unjustified actions such as massacres, executions, ill treatment of the population, etc.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxis[t] said the Naxalites did indeed construct and have constructed such popular institutions, in which case I would critically support them. However, I could not find any source. I could find information on people's courts and blowing up infrastructure, but nothing on the alternative counter-political structure.

Unless someone can provide verifiable information on the political counter-power structure, I can only conclude that they are not a revolutionary force: they are a minority and them capturing political power can only lead to subsequent minority rule.


i recommend people read "Walking with the Comrades" by Arundhati Roy, a short pamphlet on the naxalites, published in outlook india magazine. it's available online if you google it.

but yes, the naxalites are creating institutions of revolutionary power in their base areas where the masses are finally able to rule. the indian regime has lamented that large swaths of a corridor stretching from the nepal border to the eastern shore of the continent has either come under people's rule or is severely affected by maoist operations. (google the "compact revolutionary zone" for a map)

if you did a little research you could much more of the information you're looking for. i would recommend doing so before dismissing the most important revolutionary movement in the world as "not a revolutionary force" and "a minority." (isn't any kind of government minority rule? can you clarify what you mean here?)



This is actually quite small. A country with 1 billion people, with 20,000 armed men and 50,000 active supports, compared to 53 million people in South Africa, with the Abahlali baseMjondolo having 25,000 members and thousands of (active) sympathisers and supporters; Mexico with 130 million people, and the Zapatistas mobilising 40,000 people for a demonstration in a state of 4,000,000; or the Koma Civaken Kurdistan whose armed wings they claim has some 20,000 armed men and women in an area populated by 30 million people, and many thousands of active supports in Kurdistan, as well as Europe.

i think we're talking apples and oranges here. the people's liberation guerrilla army of india having 20,000 full-time fighters (in addition to the estimated 50k maoist cadres leading movements in both the countryside and the cities) is different from organizing a 40,000-strong protest march, or a slumdweller movement with 25,000 members.

from what i know about them, i think all of these people's movements you mentioned around the world deserve our solidarity - but these are qualitatively different phenomena here. not sure why i even need to point out the fundamental distinction.

[Os Cangaceiros]

the amount of variables that have to be taken into consideration are so numerous that i personally feel that placing movements like this into neat theoretical boxes does a disservice to proper analysis. also, saying that 'it will be different this time' does not mean that there is nothing to learn from the past. my point was that the conditions under which the naxalites operate have not existed previously and therefore to dismiss them based upon what happened in the past doesn't make any sense. i fail to see the difference between 'maoism in the past failed and and led to unsatisfactory results so it should fuck off and die' and 'marxism in the past failed and led to unsatisfactory results so it should fuck off and die'.

Well obviously the situation in India is not exactly the same as anywhere else Maoism has found itself in armed opposition to the state (like in Peru, the Phillipines etc). However the actual issues that Indian Maoists focus on are not so much different from plain old Maoism as we all understand it, and as theorized by the likes of Charu Mazumdar, etc. The same old Maoist politics of the peasantry/"the masses", land reform, "cultural revolution" (like Calcutta's so-called "Cultural Revolution") etc. All of these things and others are perfectly valid points of criticism, and since they exist in other Maoist movements, I think it's also valid to point out this historical trajectory and criticize it, if one disagrees with Maoism's tenets.

[Art Vandelay]

I would agree with this. However the role of the peasantry has changed substantially since Marx's time and the time of the Russian revolution, especially with the large-scale privatization of the commons in the developing world, and the fact that the lines between workers and peasants are increasingly blurred (as in Mexico, where peasants are forced to migrate and become factory workers out of economic necessity, while supporting their families which continue to work as peasants)

I do know that the peasantry being displaced is a huge problem in Mexico and the situation has been getting more and more grave since the implementation of NAFTA in 94'. However upon their displacement and migration into the inner city slums, this fundamentally changes their relationship to the means of production; as well (I would argue) their families relationship to the means of production in some way, as they would now be receiving part of the wage of their displaced family member(s).


This is true in many cases. However peasants around the world relate to the global market and landowners in varying ways, and in some contexts the peasants will see their interests much more in line with the workers than in others.

Which is not something that I would ever disagree with. My point wasn't to critique the peasantry specifically as a class, it just irks me to see self proclaimed Marxists support peasant based movements. I would criticize a peasant based movement the same way I would criticize any class alien based movement. This isn't a moralistic argument, but an evaluation of revolutionary potential. I'm not saying peasants cannot play a progressive role (however it may have seemed like that with my reactionary comment; I was in a bad mood yesterday and a little hyperbolic), just that they can't take the lead in a proletarian revolution; why this is being debated to me is absurd.


I was thinking specifically of cases in Latin America, however there are cases of people coming over to the Naxalites for similar reasons - I'm thinking of the opposition to a car factory by West Bengali peasants which the Maoists were using to agitate against the CPI-M government.

I'll have to look it up.


Another interesting example, not in India but Latin America, is the recent takeover of a Palm Oil plantation in Honduras. Peasants who lost their right to farm on collective land which was sold without their permission to plantation owners took up arms and seized the agricultural means of production, despite armed opposition from the state and from plantation owners alike. It's not a socialist revolution, but it's an example of how peasants in the modern global economy are increasingly forced to take the kinds of actions which could be a part of a broader socialist movement. The problem in the case of Honduras isn't the fact that it is the peasants who took the land and not workers, but in the fact that there is no mass organization which can unite the struggles of these peasants with that of the workers.

And I would undoubtedly support any action by the peasantry like the one you are talking about above and would also agree with your description that what is lacking is a mass organization to unite the struggles.


I would say that class collaboration with the bourgeoisie creates economic conditions where there is a strong incentive for so-called "revolutionaries" to become bourgeois themselves. This seems to have happened in both China and Nepal. So it is an issue of class collaboration, but with those who own the MoP more than with the peasants.

Again there seems to be some sort of misconception that I hold the peasantry in disdain or something, which really isn't the case. My issue isn't with the peasantry specifically in this case, but the Maoist tendency which has as a cornerstone of its ideology, class collaboration. I'm not criticizing the peasantry specifically, but class collaboration; allowing class alien movement into the party. That is one of the reasons I consider Maoism theoretically worthless.


The peasants will come along with a socialist revolution more easily than the petit bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie because their class interests are, generally speaking, going to be more in line with a revolution.


Of course, my point wasn't that they wouldn't be more sympathetic to the proletarian cause, but merely that the proletariat must be the class pushing forth the struggle; it is the proletarian class who has the historic goal of surpassing capital.


I do like to argue devil's advocate - as I said I'm no Maoist or Maoist sympathizer - and in some respects yes that is what I am doing. However I am leery of dismissing the revolutionary potential of the peasantry in general - not because I think that they can take the place of the working class, but because in many parts of the world their class interests will be directly in line with a socio-economic revolution, whether they know it or not. I'm also not such a pessimist about the ability of peasants to initiate a revolution in certain circumstances, especially when the commons which they need to utilize to survive are under threat from the efforts of international capital.

Then it would see that we are in agreement.

[maskerade]

Well obviously the situation in India is not exactly the same as anywhere else Maoism has found itself in armed opposition to the state (like in Peru, the Phillipines etc). However the actual issues that Indian Maoists focus on are not so much different from plain old Maoism as we all understand it, and as theorized by the likes of Charu Mazumdar, etc. The same old Maoist politics of the peasantry/"the masses", land reform, "cultural revolution" (like Calcutta's so-called "Cultural Revolution") etc. All of these things and others are perfectly valid points of criticism, and since they exist in other Maoist movements, I think it's also valid to point out this historical trajectory and criticize it, if one disagrees with Maoism's tenets.

yes, this type of criticism is fine, i was referring to the people that said stuff without qualifying it or without demonstrating why they disliked the movement. i'm not a maoist but the naxalites nonetheless have my support for mounting an effective resistance to capitalist hegemony

[radical_subjectivity]

Why is there so much bitterness? It is clear that in this situation any radical is on the side of the rebellion against the government of India, all else is backbiting, is indeed sectarianism. It doesn't matter if it's a peasant-based movement; the first thing to notice is that it's a movement of the people against oppression and if you have a hard time standing behind that then there's very little point.

History isn't a textbook exercise to see if we've absorbed the material.