Chances of victory for the Naxalites?

[Akshay!]

What's the probability that the Naxalites (Indian Maoists, etc.) would actually win some day? Is that even possible? (By "win" I mean overthrow the capitalist system in India.)

Also, I know this is a stupid question, but is there any chance that China has anything to do with them?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is impossible to tell with Operation: Greenhunt still in full effect. The government offensive has run deep and is still murderous with zeal to hunt down revolutionaries. By all accounts the Maoists are doing well by they are struggling nonetheless. Their chances for victory will be determined by how well they reorganize in relation to their set-backs and gains.

China will be of no help: they are a imperialist power and as such will not help a revolutionary faction in any serious manner.

[ind_com]

What's the probability that the Naxalites (Indian Maoists, etc.) would actually win some day? Is that even possible? (By "win" I mean overthrow the capitalist system in India.)

I think there is a good chance of the Indian Revolution achieving a nationwide victory within two decades or so. There are many technical problems, but so far many have been tackled well by the Indian revolutionary masses.



Also, I know this is a stupid question, but is there any chance that China has anything to do with them?

No.

[Akshay!]

It is impossible to tell with Operation: Greenhunt still in full effect. The government offensive has run deep and is still murderous with zeal to hunt down revolutionaries. By all accounts the Maoists are doing well by they are struggling nonetheless. Their chances for victory will be determined by how well they reorganize in relation to their set-backs and gains.


I think there is a good chance of the Indian Revolution achieving a nationwide victory within two decades or so. There are many technical problems, but so far many have been tackled well by the Indian revolutionary masses.

Again, this question might sound kinda silly but how exactly do they plan to take power? I mean, sure, they have influence over certain villages but India has an army with all kinds of advanced weapons and all - how exactly do the Maoists plan to defeat them (if at all)? Obviously I wish they win but it seems to me to be unlikely.

@ind_com - out of curiosity, can you lay out a somewhat detailed plan as to how they can have a nationwide victory within 2 decades?

[ind_com]

Again, this question might sound kinda silly but how exactly do they plan to take power? I mean, sure, they have influence over certain villages but India has an army with all kinds of advanced weapons and all - how exactly do the Maoists plan to defeat them (if at all)? Obviously I wish they win but it seems to me to be unlikely.

@ind_com - out of curiosity, can you lay out a somewhat detailed plan as to how they can have a nationwide victory within 2 decades?

The CPI(Maoist) has its own strategy and tactics, which are the application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the concrete conditions of India. It is different from what Maoists in other countries follow, and is mainly responsible for the CPI(Maoist) being able to liquidate the conventional government over a third of the country. Laying out a detailed plan is not possible here, but these are some points that are easy to deduce and indicate the advantages of the CPI(Maoist). These don't imply a victory within two decades though. :)

1) The Indian working class. The Indian working class numbers to a few crores and is extremely militant in nature. Even when it is not very organized politically, it strikes back violently at its bosses. The expansionist nature of the Indian comprador bourgeoisie has resulted concentration of a large number of Indian workers in the cities as the urban proletariat, the most advanced working class in history. Dependence on this section of the population helps Maoists to wield the proletarian class line everywhere in the country, and engage in militant actions within the cities with local support.

2) The size and experience of the CPI(Maoist). The CPI(Maoist) is a huge party, spread allover India and many places abroad. It also has experience over a vast variety of political and military situations, making it impossible even for a series of internal and external threats to put it in a compromising position.

3) The information age and availability of good technology in India. Though India is far behind the imperialist countries in general in terms of mass-availability of technology, it is possible to get most high-tech stuff in some place or the other in India. Using this and their widespread communication system, Maoists modernize themselves rapidly and sometimes even go ahead of the state forces in this aspect.

4) Long-standing communist bases. Some communist bases have stood their ground for decades and hence a generation has appeared in those places who are culturally compatible to socialism. They provide a steady stream of human resource for all revolutionary activities.

5) The demographic diversity of India. India is a country where no single community can be called the majority. Unlike in China where the Han population was the most active revolutionary portion, in India the minorities together are much more active in the revolution. Their nationalism has liquidated in the course of fighting collectively, so that bourgeois tendencies are very rare in the Indian Maoist movement.

6) External support and international situation. The CPI(Maoist) intervenes wherever the Indian state occupies other nations. In this way, it has forged alliances with national liberation groups in the North East. It also has many allies abroad. Internationally, the people's wars in other countries are also advancing, and communists in imperialist countries are organizing along newer military lines. If the international situation is utilized properly, no revolution in any country will be defeated by capitalism.

7) Sectarianism. Most of you would consider this as a negative point, but Indian Maoists are the biggest sectarians ever. :D There is no opposition to cooperating with whichever leftist group is willing to go ahead for revolutionary changes, but all other ideologies are considered revisionist in essence. Trotskyism, Left Communism of today, Hoxhaism etc. are all considered revisionism and Marxism-clad representation of capitalism. Guevarism is considered as armed revisionism though notable Guevarists are considered as respectable revolutionaries who made mistakes. The CPI(Maoist) openly opposes the so-called socialism of Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, China etc. as revisionist, though it supports them against US imperialism. It also supports only a handful among those who call themselves Maoist. Inside India itself, it opposes all the other big groups that call themselves Naxalites, with only three well known smaller ones being its allies. Parties like the MLPD etc. are not even remotely considered as revolutionary. RCP-USA and Kasama both began to be opposed years ago, and the CPN(M) was being considered as revisionist by many from 2006 itself, and revisionist elements within its theory were identified about 3 years prior to that. This of course alienates the CPI(Maoist) from many, but wrong statements or lines like the recent one from Gajurel or some from our respected Filipino comrades will not emerge from here.

[Zostrianos]

In this way, it has forged alliances with national liberation groups in the North East.

I hope you realize some of those "liberation" groups in the Northeast are Christian fundamentalists. The National Liberation front of Tripura is a Christian version of the Taliban, who force people to convert at gun point and have also murdered Marxists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#India

[Akshay!]

7) Sectarianism. Most of you would consider this as a negative point, but Indian Maoists are the biggest sectarians ever. :D There is no opposition to cooperating with whichever leftist group is willing to go ahead for revolutionary changes, but all other ideologies are considered revisionist in essence.

Do you consider that something good? If yes, why?


being able to liquidate the conventional government over a third of the country.

So, do they literally control 1/3 of the districts? I mean do they literally run them or do they have a few members in those districts?


The demographic diversity of India. India is a country where no single community can be called the majority.


Is that a net advantage to the movement? How?


The information age and availability of good technology in India. Though India is far behind the imperialist countries in general in terms of mass-availability of technology, it is possible to get most high-tech stuff in some place or the other in India. Using this and their widespread communication system, Maoists modernize themselves rapidly and sometimes even go ahead of the state forces in this aspect.

But they're poor people, how do they get the money to "modernize" them? How do they get their funding?


The expansionist nature of the Indian comprador bourgeoisie has resulted concentration of a large number of Indian workers in the cities as the urban proletariat, the most advanced working class in history. Dependence on this section of the population helps Maoists to wield the proletarian class line everywhere in the country, and engage in militant actions within the cities with local support.

From personal experience, I don't think the people who live in cities like New Delhi and Mumbai can really be considered militant.. at least not the upper middle class.. most of them don't care about politics.. they're busy with the same meaningless stuff as the people in US, etc.. maybe I'm wrong..


Laying out a detailed plan is not possible here, but these are some points that are easy to deduce and indicate the advantages of the CPI(Maoist).

But how will they take over the northern parts of India? Have they taken over any major "cities"? Do they have any presence outside the so called red corridor?

Lastly, why don't the more conservative people in China (who're still Maoists) give money to the Naxalites?

[Per Levy]

I think there is a good chance of the Indian Revolution achieving a nationwide victory within two decades or so.

a few questions about this rather optimistic view.

how many fighter do the naxalites have?

the naxalites operate since a long time, are there signs that the naxalites are content in what they have, like the farc in colombia?

would the naxalites accept a proletarian revolution that has nothing to do with them? or would they fight since they are so sectarian and all?

what is stopping the naxalites from becomeing like their idiological comrades in nepal?

do the naxalites have even a chance of spreading to any non jungle/mountain districts, like urban districts, and taking them?

[Ocean Seal]

Honestly, given the tract record of most Maoist protracted war groups, the chances of revolution are slim. That being said, I wouldn't rule it out being that the world is always in quite a delicate balance.

[ind_com]

I hope you realize some of those "liberation" groups in the Northeast are Christian fundamentalists. The National Liberation front of Tripura is a Christian version of the Taliban, who force people to convert at gun point and have also murdered Marxists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#India

The NLFT is very small and doesn't have much influence. There are other small groups too that are highlighted more but are of minimal importance to the struggle. The influence of fundamentalists is very low among the revolutionary groups. The bigger groups are somewhat influenced by Christianity, and deduce socialist ideas from there. The general tendency is shifting more towards Marxism with time, and in Manipur, a Maoist party has already become the principal revolutionary group.

[ind_com]

Do you consider that something good? If yes, why?


I think it is good to have such a line because it tells us which groups will ultimately side with the revolution and which won't.


So, do they literally control 1/3 of the districts? I mean do they literally run them or do they have a few members in those districts?How is liquidating the government possible with just a few members? :D Most of those regions have thousands of revolutionaries and a situation of dual-power.


Is that a net advantage to the movement? How?No single group can be the majority and have a chauvinistic attitude inside the revolutionary camp.


But they're poor people, how do they get the money to "modernize" them? How do they get their funding?It is easy to get money and resources when you run a government. Once Maoists eliminate the exploiters in a locality, the people use the available resources efficiently, produce more than enough for their own subsistence, and still have hours to spare. By collective mobilization of this extra labour power, Maoists improve the infrastructure of production. Once this is done, getting money and further improvements follow. For example, the Maoist stronghold in central India is the only place in India where the people have created a fully functional rainwater-harvesting and irrigation system. Despite being outside of the most fertile zones of India, that region rarely faces any food shortage, and is maintaining itself despite military invasions by the Indian Government. The only problem is that once Indian state forces enter, they steal right and left from the masses. So, once Maoists become strong enough to resist these invasions for longer periods, technology can be made available for the masses.


From personal experience, I don't think the people who live in cities like New Delhi and Mumbai can really be considered militant.. at least not the upper middle class.. most of them don't care about politics.. they're busy with the same meaningless stuff as the people in US, etc.. maybe I'm wrong..The upper middle class is generally reactionary and sides against the revolution. It is the working class that is the leading force of revolution, and the working classes of both Delhi and Mumbai are extremely militant.


But how will they take over the northern parts of India? Have they taken over any major "cities"? Do they have any presence outside the so called red corridor?There are Maoist organizations everywhere in India other than Kashmir and most of North East. The red corridor is the region where they have the most influence. The armed struggle has not spread to the northern parts like Punjab, Haryana or Rajasthan yet, but they are not the sole form of Maoist organization.


Lastly, why don't the more conservative people in China (who're still Maoists) give money to the Naxalites?You'd better ask them that, :) but i think their fundamental task is to revive Maoism in China, not financially help a movement that is already too big for them to make any difference financially. Even if you consider just the salary of guerrillas, the total expenditure comes at least to the order of tens of crores of Rupees.

[ind_com]

a few questions about this rather optimistic view.

how many fighter do the naxalites have?

The guerrilla and the conventional army is around a lakh or more.


the naxalites operate since a long time, are there signs that the naxalites are content in what they have, like the farc in colombia?

I don't know whether the FARC are content with anything less than overthrowing the Colombian Government, but Maoist practice in India definitely aims towards the World Revolution. At least the domestic expansion is clearly observable.


would the naxalites accept a proletarian revolution that has nothing to do with them? or would they fight since they are so sectarian and all?

Well I don't really believe that there can be a non-Maoist proletarian revolution today. But if something like that really happens, they will definitely have critical support from the Maoists.


what is stopping the naxalites from becomeing like their idiological comrades in nepal?

Deeper practice and adherence to an anti-parliamentary line, absence of a cult of personality, the general culture of questioning and criticizing every minute detail of a given line.



do the naxalites have even a chance of spreading to any non jungle/mountain districts, like urban districts, and taking them?

Many of the recent expansions are in places with little or no forest cover. The uprising in Nandigram was eventually defeated, but it lasted for several months, and that place is mostly a plane agricultural land. Lalgarh also has many non-jungle regions, and is witnessing a Maoist revival after the initial retreat. Narayanpatna in Orissa is again mostly agricultural land and is in a condition of dual power; much better than the previous two.

[Tim Cornelis]

With a mere 60,000 fighters, seemingly little urban support, no institutions of workers' power, I anticipate this "people's war" will end like the FARC, or the Shining Path, or the PKK. It will drag on for a few decades, and with it hundreds if not thousands of people will unnecessarily perish, then the Naxalites recognise a few thousand fighters cannot win against an army of 1,200,000 people, 2,000,000 reservists, and 1,300,000 paramilitaries. Especially given that their increased brutishness has diminished their support further. It will then start peace negotiations and disappear.
If they could win and do win, they'd implement New Democracy as I read in one of their documents. The same as Nepal. It's a dead-end fight with no winners.

[ind_com]

With a mere 60,000 fighters, seemingly little urban support, no institutions of workers' power, I anticipate this "people's war" will end like the FARC, or the Shining Path, or the PKK. It will drag on for a few decades, and with it hundreds if not thousands of people will unnecessarily perish, then the Naxalites recognise a few thousand fighters cannot win against an army of 1,200,000 people, 2,000,000 reservists, and 1,300,000 paramilitaries. Especially given that their increased brutishness has diminished their support further. It will then start peace negotiations and disappear.
If they could win and do win, they'd implement New Democracy as I read in one of their documents. The same as Nepal. It's a dead-end fight with no winners.

This post of yours is a good example of why we are so sectarian towards other tendencies and consider them to be representatives of capitalism. False information, dead-wrong analysis, and everything covered with a thin coating of Marxism, but clearly tuned to the interests of imperialism; there is no essential difference between your post and what someone in defenceforumindia would post on this topic. Every year they claim that Maoists have lost popularity and are going to give up, but the revolution only expands with time. There's no use spreading capitalist propaganda.

[Tim Cornelis]

This post of yours is a good example of why we are so sectarian towards other tendencies

Which is strange given that this has nothing to do with my tendency, or the Maoist tendency in general for that matter. It has to do with strategy, specifically workers' empowerment and workers' power.


and consider them to be representatives of capitalism.

Which is strange since a Naxalite document I read avowedly claimed to want to implement New Democracy, a document I think you linked me to (if not, another revleft member). A rather explicit capitalistic system.

I honestly don't see how I am a representative of capitalism. Is it because I said I think it's highly unlikely an army of 60,000 will win over an army totaling 4,000,000 armed personnel? Does that make me a capitalist and un-Marxist? This has nothing to do with politics, it has everything to do with realism.


False information,

Which?


dead-wrong analysis,

How?


and everything covered with a thin coating of Marxism,

This analysis has nothing to do with Marxism.


but clearly tuned to the interests of imperialism;

I reek a fallacy, but I'll bite, how? Honestly, how is saying you don't think a movement will be victorious "tuned to the interests of imperialism." For instance, I support the South African AbM, but I don't think it will be victorious for various reasons. How would that make me defending imperialism's interests? It makes no sense whatsoever.


there is no essential difference between your post and what someone in defenceforumindia would post on this topic.

Definitely a fallacy. This does not change whether or not my post was true.


Every year they claim that Maoists have lost popularity and are going to give up,

I didn't. I said it will drag on for decades. And my mentioning of loss of popularity was a prediction, by looking at the FARC. With violence being so prevalent it normalises, making those involved more prone to excesses or massacres. Thus, as the conflict drags on I anticipate more excesses leading to a loss of popularity for the Naxalites.


but the revolution only expands with time.

How can you have a revolution without workers' power? I have asked you and other revleft members several times for a source wherein it is mentioned what and how the Naxalites build workers' power. This is not a matter of sectarianism, as I've already several times said I (at least) critically support any movement, regardless of its tendency, that is building workers' power. So far someone, I think it was you, posted a link in response to my request with one sentence claiming (paraphrasing) "people's courts are more than just that." It does not explain what they are then.
If I look for information about the Zapatistas I can find multiple sources which verify the existence of Councils of Good Government, I can find multiple sources of the Abahlali baseMjondolo detailing how its internal democratic structure works, I can find multiple sources about the Syrian Kurdish areas under control of the PKK-affiliate and how they've set up a governing structure based on people's councils, people's committees, people's houses, and a West-Kurdistan Congress. I cannot, however, find any source which explain the non-military, worker-peasant structures that the Naxalites are supposedly building.


There's no use spreading capitalist propaganda.

Rather than call me capitalist and whatnot, respond to my "dead-wrong" analysis with arguments why you consider it wrong. So here is my position:

1) It is unrealistic to expect a victory of 60,000 armed personnel over 4,000,000 armed personnel.
2) It is unrealistic to expect proletarian emancipation without constructing workers' power, dare I say impossible.
3) Even ignoring this, the Naxalites advocate New Democracy, a class collaborationist and capitalist system, so their victory would be meaningless for socialism -- again, the same as with Nepal.

I remember in the last thread, there was an Al-Jazeera 'documentary' in which a former Maoist (though still communist) and negotiator says "If you do not wage class struggle, you'll end up with terrorrism." Which is exactly my criticism as well. Class struggle involves creating workers' power, which, ostensibly, the Naxalites do not do.

Please explain why these positions are wrong, and how they are capitalist propaganda.

[ind_com]

Which is strange given that this has nothing to do with my tendency, or the Maoist tendency in general for that matter. It has to do with strategy, specifically workers' empowerment and workers' power.

Which is strange since a Naxalite document I read avowedly claimed to want to implement New Democracy, a document I think you linked me to (if not, another revleft member). A rather explicit capitalistic system.

New democracy is not capitalism. Capitalism requires the bourgeoisie in power. The New Democratic Revolution has the working classes at its core.


I honestly don't see how I am a representative of capitalism. Is it because I said I think it's highly unlikely an army of 60,000 will win over an army totaling 4,000,000 armed personnel? Does that make me a capitalist and un-Marxist? This has nothing to do with politics, it has everything to do with realism.Bourgeois view of revolutionary war always predicts defeat. Your analysis considers the strength of the Maoist fighting force as a constant, which is against the Marxist notion of struggle itself strengthening the revolutionaries. The Maoist force was nothing when it started. Then it grew to several hundreds, and thousands. It will be several lakhs by the time the Maoist Revolution achieves nationwide victory.



Which?Your claims about increasing brutishness and diminishing support.


How?The prediction of defeat.


This analysis has nothing to do with Marxism.It does, throughout.


I reek a fallacy, but I'll bite, how? Honestly, how is saying you don't think a movement will be victorious "tuned to the interests of imperialism." For instance, I support the South African AbM, but I don't think it will be victorious for various reasons. How would that make me defending imperialism's interests? It makes no sense whatsoever.



Definitely a fallacy. This does not change whether or not my post was true.



I didn't. I said it will drag on for decades. And my mentioning of loss of popularity was a prediction, by looking at the FARC. With violence being so prevalent it normalises, making those involved more prone to excesses or massacres. Thus, as the conflict drags on I anticipate more excesses leading to a loss of popularity for the Naxalites.You ignore the expansion of the revolution and predict defeat in almost a fictional manner, when you assume that the current number of Maoist fighters is not enough to defeat the government. This is too stupid a mistake for someone who really wants a revolution to succeed.


How can you have a revolution without workers' power? I have asked you and other revleft members several times for a source wherein it is mentioned what and how the Naxalites build workers' power. This is not a matter of sectarianism, as I've already several times said I (at least) critically support any movement, regardless of its tendency, that is building workers' power. So far someone, I think it was you, posted a link in response to my request with one sentence claiming (paraphrasing) "people's courts are more than just that." It does not explain what they are then.
If I look for information about the Zapatistas I can find multiple sources which verify the existence of Councils of Good Government, I can find multiple sources of the Abahlali baseMjondolo detailing how its internal democratic structure works, I can find multiple sources about the Syrian Kurdish areas under control of the PKK-affiliate and how they've set up a governing structure based on people's councils, people's committees, people's houses, and a West-Kurdistan Congress. I cannot, however, find any source which explain the non-military, worker-peasant structures that the Naxalites are supposedly building.
I have mentioned many times before the Janathana Sirkars, People's Revolutionary Committees, People's Militia etc. The People's Courts that are held by these organizations of workers' power are well known even in the bourgeois media. The Zapatistas have practically no fighting force left and don't wage war against the government anymore. They can open up their territories as much as they like and gain popularity for their pacifism. The CPI(Maoist) is the largest revolutionary group in the world today, and hence not many authors or journalists dare to involve themselves with it. There is no detailed report about the Maoist organs of people's power. What I said about the People's Court is that the mainstream media describes every decision-making gathering of the organs of people's power as a People's Court, which is inaccurate. Here are some more reports about the Janathana Sirkar, which again, are not detailed.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/out-of-the-red--------/2488/1

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/1LnN690wUpbM7o0jryroBI/Filling-the-void-in-governance.html?facet=print

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/34-days-with-maoists-inside-the-forest

The Maoist dominated PCAPA and CMAS are two good examples of mass organizations that exercised people's power. The PCAPA has been torn down and liquidated, but both of these organizations have involved themselves in local governance, land distribution etc. There is a good article by Arundhati Roy called 'Walking with the Comrades', where she mentions that a Maoist mass-front in Bastar alone has over 90,000 members. It should be understood that a movement that cannot mobilize and involve the masses to such an extent cannot stand up against the centralized assaults of the Indian state for decades.


Rather than call me capitalist and whatnot, respond to my "dead-wrong" analysis with arguments why you consider it wrong. So here is my position:

1) It is unrealistic to expect a victory of 60,000 armed personnel over 4,000,000 armed personnel.I replied to this earlier in this post. The Maoist army will be far larger by the time it fully overthrows the Indian state.


2) It is unrealistic to expect proletarian emancipation without constructing workers' power, dare I say impossible.As I claimed earlier, those are already present wherever the Maoists have considerable influence.


3) Even ignoring this, the Naxalites advocate New Democracy, a class collaborationist and capitalist system, so their victory would be meaningless for socialism -- again, the same as with Nepal.

I remember in the last thread, there was an Al-Jazeera 'documentary' in which a former Maoist (though still communist) and negotiator says "If you do not wage class struggle, you'll end up with terrorrism." Which is exactly my criticism as well. Class struggle involves creating workers' power, which, ostensibly, the Naxalites do not do.

Please explain why these positions are wrong, and how they are capitalist propaganda.The New Deomcratic Revolution consists of a bloc of four classes, the core of which are the two working classes; the proletariat and sections of the peasantry. The petty bourgeoisie or middle class is the third revolutionary class, and the left wing of the national bourgeoisie provides vacillating alliance. The participation of the national bourgeoisie is determined by its historical position on anti-imperialist struggles, and its need in industrialization. The degree of regulation or the stage in which the national bourgeoisie is to be excluded from the revolution, is a matter of debate. But still, New Democracy differs from capitalism in a crucial political point; that it is not the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by its definition. Of course, we know that this is the point that many shades of revisionists use again and again to attack Maoism, though their own groups have never engaged in revolutionary struggles anywhere and their defence of revisionism is even more pathetic than their practical failure.

[Tim Cornelis]

Note: I just start writing responding to each claim. It may be that I criticise one point while you have actually already addressed it further below in your comment.


New democracy is not capitalism. Capitalism requires the bourgeoisie in power. The New Democratic Revolution has the working classes at its core.

Nonsense. Capitalism is a mode of production. Any system where the bourgeoisie exists, implies a capitalist mode of production. The Labour Parties also had the working class at its core, but this in itself does not prove it is not capitalistic.

Bourgeois view of revolutionary war always predicts defeat.

I don't see how or why "bourgeois view" would do say, it could very well realistically evaluate the odds of a communist or far-left group winning.


Your analysis considers the strength of the Maoist fighting force as a constant, which is against the Marxist notion of struggle itself strengthening the revolutionaries. The Maoist force was nothing when it started. Then it grew to several hundreds, and thousands. It will be several lakhs by the time the Maoist Revolution achieves nationwide victory.

Well indeed I did not consider it would grow (which is simply an obvious mistake, it has nothing to do with 'Marxist' analysis).


Your claims about increasing brutishness and diminishing support.

The prediction of defeat.

It does, throughout.

You ignore the expansion of the revolution and predict defeat in almost a fictional manner, when you assume that the current number of Maoist fighters is not enough to defeat the government. This is too stupid a mistake for someone who really wants a revolution to succeed.

Saying it is stupid is not a substitute for an argument. Sources suggest the areas in which the Naxalites are active has diminished. For example, sourced claims on wikipedia state:

“In 2009, Naxalites were active across approximately 180 districts in ten states of India.[10] In August 2010, after the first full year of implementation of the national IAP program, Karnataka was removed from the list of naxal affected states.[11] In July 2011, the number of Naxal affected areas was reduced to (figure includes proposed addition of 20 districts) 83 districts across nine states.[12][13][14] In December 2011, the national government reported that the number of Naxalite related deaths and injuries nationwide had gone down by nearly 50% from 2010 levels.[15]”


I have mentioned many times before the Janathana Sirkars, People's Revolutionary Committees, People's Militia etc. The People's Courts that are held by these organizations of workers' power are well known even in the bourgeois media.

Yes, I already mentioned the people's courts. They are only in a limited sense organs of workers' power, their scope is limited. Are there decision-making bodies of workers and peasants?
Janathana Sirkars gives 5 results to vague blogs, googling People's Revolutionary Committees + Naxalites gives no source mentioning them, a People's Milita is military and is not what I'm looking for (obviously I know the Naxalites have armed power).

I only coincidentally found something interesting. Googling People's Committee and Naxalites brought up the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities (PCAPA), I assumed it was not a Naxalite organisation but decided to google it anyway. Which resulted in: Operation Lalgarh.

“Grassroots Democracy
The movement had no conventional leadership and often entire village population sat together and discussed for hours as to the steps to be taken in the movement[citation needed]. Men, women, youth, students all took part in these grand meetings. The traditional leaders were not stripped of the respect that they usually received but were given no more weight than anyone else at the meetings[citation needed]. A forum was thus launched which had no conventional political color and which united the entire adivasi society for a common cause after a long time. It gained immense popularity and most mainstream parties and their mass bases vanished altogether.
Village committees [edit]

Each Village formed a committee of 10 representatives who would with committees of other villages to communicate the decision of the masses of one village to another. Each committee further had two persons who had to be available at all times in case of urgent meetings at short notices[citation needed].”

Which sounds interesting and promising. However, it does not appear to be a permanent movement. Moreover, though the Maoists supported this, it does not appear the movement or operation itself was Maoist (as is also mentioned on the wiki-page itself). Additionally, it does not give any source for the claims of village committees and democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lalgarh

Now I'd be interested in knowing if village committees and popular assemblies have been organised by the Naxalites.


The Zapatistas have practically no fighting force left and don't wage war against the government anymore. They can open up their territories as much as they like and gain popularity for their pacifism

That was not the point, my point was information about its governing structure is readily available. Also, I believe fighting should not be initiated in advance of the existence of bodies of workers' power.


. The CPI(Maoist) is the largest revolutionary group in the world today, and hence not many authors or journalists dare to involve themselves with it. There is no detailed report about the Maoist organs of people's power. What I said about the People's Court is that the mainstream media describes every decision-making gathering of the organs of people's power as a People's Court, which is inaccurate. Here are some more reports about the Janathana Sirkar, which again, are not detailed.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/out-of-the-red--------/2488/1

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/1LnN690wUpbM7o0jryroBI/Filling-the-void-in-governance.html?facet=print

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/34-days-with-maoists-inside-the-forest[QUOTE=ind_com;2619692]

Those are useful links. I'm still not clear on how the Janatana Sarkar functions, is it elected, accountable? The last article mentions the number of families in the Mettagaon (village) council to be 153. Which does suggests direct participation. Then the question is how much decision-making power does such a council have and what is the business they conduct.

“"Maoists normally form party units first, then the military, then the mass organisation. Finally, when they are confident about the security of villagers they form a JS,"”

A bit off topic, I would form party unit first, then mass organisation, then a 'JS', and then defend it through forming military units.


The Maoist dominated PCAPA and CMAS are two good examples of mass organizations that exercised people's power. The PCAPA has been torn down and liquidated, but both of these organizations have involved themselves in local governance, land distribution etc. There is a good article by Arundhati Roy called 'Walking with the Comrades', where she mentions that a Maoist mass-front in Bastar alone has over 90,000 members. It should be understood that a movement that cannot mobilize and involve the masses to such an extent cannot stand up against the centralized assaults of the Indian state for decades.

Yes, the village committees and democracy mentioned on the wiki-article sounds good. My question would be, to what extent to the Naxalites support such a system, do they view it as a germ of the future society? This question is probably too in-depth to find a reliable source on though.


I replied to this earlier in this post. The Maoist army will be far larger by the time it fully overthrows the Indian state.

Well two issues here, they have to be much larger in order to overthrow it, and second IF they overthrow it. Of which I'm not confident at all.


The New Deomcratic Revolution consists of a bloc of four classes, the core of which are the two working classes; the proletariat and sections of the peasantry. The petty bourgeoisie or middle class is the third revolutionary class, and the left wing of the national bourgeoisie provides vacillating alliance. The participation of the national bourgeoisie is determined by its historical position on anti-imperialist struggles, and its need in industrialization. The degree of regulation or the stage in which the national bourgeoisie is to be excluded from the revolution, is a matter of debate. But still, New Democracy differs from capitalism in a crucial political point; that it is not the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by its definition. Of course, we know that this is the point that many shades of revisionists use again and again to attack Maoism, though their own groups have never engaged in revolutionary struggles anywhere and their defence of revisionism is even more pathetic than their practical failure.

You're mixing up the superstructure and mode of production. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is superstructure, capitalism is mode of production. Even if there is no dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there is still capitalism. The haute bourgeoisie is not need in industrialisation, such can be achieved by the workers.
That last sentence was a tu quoque fallacy.

In conclusion, I disagree with the New Democracy, I disagree with the people's war and would use military force only after workers' power and not vice versa, I support village committees and workers' power, insofar it can be called that. But as long as the Maoists continue to advocate class collaboration it is difficult to speak of workers' power, and difficult for me to extend even my critical support. Additionally, many sources confirm their brutish and coercive tactics which I cannot support. I still do not think the Naxalites (remember, irrespective of ideological convictions) have the means to overthrow the Indian government now, and don't expect that to change tomorrow.

[Akshay!]

ind_com, your knowledge about this whole movement is pretty amazing. Is there any specific book or website, etc.. that you'd recommend for someone who wants to know more about the Naxalites? I've read Arundhati Roy's article (and seen some videos also). It's great but I want a more in-depth historical analysis of the struggle (more recent would be preferable..) Thanks. :)

And to those who've not yet read all the posts in the thread, here's an advice: skip everything that Tim Cornelis wrote. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Every single post clearly demonstrates that fact.

[Per Levy]

And to those who've not yet read all the posts in the thread, here's an advice: skip everything that Tim Cornelis wrote. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Every single post clearly demonstrates that fact.

yeah, skip the guy who engages in a discussion, looks for sources and actually challenges you to think about the situation instead only read the guy who throws around maoist slogans and phrases and is overly optimistic of the situation to say at least.

[redfist.]

I have a slightly related question: Where can I find information on the insurgency from the perspective of the revolutionaries. Every source I've found on the subject seems completely lopsided to the perspective of the Indian government. Can anyone help me out. A neutral perspective works too, and is probably preferred too.

[Akshay!]

yeah, skip the guy who engages in a discussion, looks for sources and actually challenges you to think about the situation instead only read the guy who throws around maoist slogans and phrases and is overly optimistic of the situation to say at least.

It's easy for some stupid kid in the west to talk endlessly about the flaws in a resistance movement going on in the third world on an internet forum - it's harder to step in the shoes of the 830 million Indians who live on less than 40 cents a day. The problem is not that the guy is criticizing specific tactics of the movement - the problem is that he fundamentally opposes it - which makes him worse than a capitalist. The thing with the movement is that it's successful. People who call themselves "Anarchist" don't like that. They like to do things which make them feel good but NEVER something that materially makes a difference in the lives of people in the real world. So violence is bad - any kind of revolutionary movement is bad - but anything that makes NO difference in the normal working of the capitalist state is fine. (as long as you can sing songs, have marches, petition campaigns, type on an internet forum, and all the rest of it to avoid making yourself feel guilty..)

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's easy for some stupid kid in the west to talk endlessly about the flaws in a resistance movement going on in the third world on an internet forum - it's harder to step in the shoes of the 830 million Indians who live on less than 40 cents a day.It's also easier to condesend and moralize than to make political arguments apparently.

There are quite a few revolutionaries within India who would also disagree with this strategy, and disagreeing with Tim doesn't mean he's "stupid".


The problem is not that the guy is criticizing specific tactics of the movement - the problem is that he fundamentally opposes it - which makes him worse than a capitalist. The thing with the movement is that it's successful. People who call themselves "Anarchist" don't like that. They like to do things which make them feel good but NEVER something that materially makes a difference in the lives of people in the real world. So violence is bad - any kind of revolutionary movement is bad - but anything that makes NO difference in the normal working of the capitalist state is fine. (as long as you can sing songs, have marches, petition campaigns, type on an internet forum, and all the rest of it to avoid making yourself feel guilty..)The irony is that this is the argument I get from Insurrectionist-oriented anarchists all the time: "Oh you just want boring coalition meetings, and marches and pickets... we're disrupting capital!"

So let's take this beyond tendency-cheerleading and recognize tactic/strategy discussions might actually be questions about how a real revolution might be helped along or even achieved!

I pretty much agree with Tim's criticisms although I actually don't think for the big question (will it achieve working class self-emancipation) even the Zapatistas are free of the same potential problems. Rural communities like the ones represented by the Zapatistas or the Naxilites are marginalized and the state is trying to push them out or confine them. This is why they fight and what the Indian Maoists did well (though in some ways it seems they did it by default of being repressed and having no one else to organize with) is connect to a rural struggle. But struggles like this are inherently limited because the only real power they have is through armed struggle - so they can and often do build up resistance, but for revolution there needs to actually be a force not just resisting but capable of replacing capitalism. In modern society really that places most of the power in the hands of the working class. The best chance for either the Zapatistas or Naxalites would be to link a rural armed struggle with a working class industrial struggle; this gives such a movement a real source of power in society beyond force of arms. WIthout it they can have the choice of unending indigenous-style war for an autonomous zone, (i.e. a military victory/stale-mate) or coming to some kind of deal with a source of power - in this case it would be the Indian or Mexican governments. Either way, capital can wait-out for people to lower their weapons and be caught-off gurard, or wait for the instability of such an isolated liberated zone to need to make deals with the government and then slowly compromise themselves away.

The Naxalites may very well win the battle, may even win some autonomy for people, but without a self-conscious working class movement, I don't think liberation is possible. If I am underestimating the situation and something happens and somehow New Democracy is on the table for all of India, I still don't think that automatically means that there would be working class self-emancipation, rather something more like the other "socialist" national liberation governments of the 20th century. There's a connection to their ideology, but it isn't the determining reason alone why I don't think this would work - lack of an independent revolutionary class movement of millions of Indians is the reason I don't think it would work.

[Tim Cornelis]

And to those who've not yet read all the posts in the thread, here's an advice: skip everything that Tim Cornelis wrote. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Every single post clearly demonstrates that fact.

About the bolded part, the first part suggests you do not know too much about the Naxalites. The second part is where you suggest I don't know much about the Naxalites. How can you know that I don't know much about the Naxalites if you're ignorant about it yourself? You have no information by which to judge my knowledge.

In any case, was I being unreasonable? I don't think so.

I asked with an open mind, with a nuanced viewpoint, information about the Naxalites. I voiced my opinion while clearly showing I have an open mind, it was not polemics, it was a discussion. Every argument I used had sources, and I expected sources from my opponent.


It's easy for some stupid kid in the west to talk endlessly about the flaws in a resistance movement going on in the third world on an internet forum - it's harder to step in the shoes of the 830 million Indians who live on less than 40 cents a day.

This is such a pathetic argument. So my geological location determines whether I am allowed to have an opinion on another movement? Imagine insurrectionary anarchists are active in, say, Indonesia. And you would use reasonable arguments against these tactics, would it be a legitimate retort to say "oh you're from California!".

Of course living on 40 cents a day is terrible, I cannot even imagine having to. So having a proper revolutionary strategy to accommodate social change for these people needs to be critically scrutinised, which you refuse for some reason.


The problem is not that the guy is criticizing specific tactics of the movement

Yes I am, that's exactly what I'm doing. I criticised the Naxalites for the lack of workers' power under the areas of their control. I based this argument on a lack of sources, which is no more than reasonable. I requested information about workers' power under the Naxalites, which ind_com supplied. And I explained why I still have many reservations, again, with reasonable arguments.


- the problem is that he fundamentally opposes it -

What does that even mean? I clearly stated that any movement building workers' power can expect my critical support.


which makes him worse than a capitalist.

Don't be ridiculous.


The problem with the movement is that it's successful.

No that is not the problem at all. Such unsubstantiated slander is really childish. If my arguments were unsubstantiated, unsourced, unfounded, and unreasonably you would have reason to suggest an ulterior motive for my opposition to the Naxalites. However, I clearly showed my opinion of it was based on sources, and changes when provided with sources -- as it has.


People who call themselves "Anarchists" don't like that.

Yeah that's the reason... :rolleyes: Come on, grow up. I'm not even an anarchist.


They like to do things which make them feel good but NEVER something that materially makes a difference in the lives of people in the real world.

This is so divorced from reality. Why wouldn't we want to do things that "materially" make a difference in the lives of people? It makes no sense whatsoever. An unsubstantiated sectarian jab.


So violence is bad -

No one said that. It seems you haven't even bothered to read my post. What I said was I oppose the brutishness of the Naxalites (again, based on available sources) and using military force in advance of workers' power.


any kind of revolutionary movement is bad -

Yep, totally, you got me.


but anything that makes NO difference in the normal working of the capitalist state is fine. (as long as you can sing songs, have marches, petition campaigns and all the rest of it to avoid making yourself feel guilty..)

Wow, amazing analysis.

You use a bunch of appeals to emotions, an unsubstantiated claims, as substitute for engaging with me. I'm open for discussion, you are not. You don't even seem to read my post but assume I'm wrong because I don't share your political views.

Well I would like to thank ind_com for providing the sources I was looking for, and for using actual arguments. They were certainly interesting. Contrary to what Akshay! may want to claim, I'm actually biased in favour of the Naxalites as I want to believe any far-left movement around the world with influence to be actually revolutionary. So obviously I have my mind open to being changed, but this is unlikely as I already explained why I think the strategy and New democracy is problematic. And another issue:

1) What urban ties do the Naxalites have (I know of certain movements, but they don't appear to be significant).

[Let's Get Free]

Even if they could win, it would be a complete dead end. There's nothing revolutionary at all about changing the managers of capital.

[Akshay!]

OK, great! Now can I hear more from people who actually know something about the movement? Thanks.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It is true that there has been a decrease in the level of violence. However it's important to note that this is a part of the Naxalites strategic reorientation. In 2009, the Indian Government launched a massive counter offensive dubbed "operation green hunt". Areas of Maoist control were surrounded and the government utilized artery to bomb villiages under Naxal influence to dust.

There is a saying in Maoist military strategy, "If the enemy attacks, retreat, if the enemy camps, harass, if the enemy tires, pursue". Right now rebels are retreating and regrouping. However despite the reduction in tactical offensives, Maoist rebels have redoubled their efforts to harass enemy forces and demoralize them. So while they have not focused on killing the enemy as much as they used to, they are focusing more on destroying infrastructure and ruining moral to great effect. While on one hand, the government tends to be able to arrest 1000 maoists annually, the Indian government loses plenty more solidgers to attrition and routing. As seen here:

http://www.signalfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/crpf_660_051613104116.jpg

Here is a bourgeois article that explains the above image:

Government’s war against Maoists faces a blow as CRPF suffers high attrition

Morale of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), tasked with carrying out anti-Maoist operations, seems to have hit an all-time low. The paramilitary force has witnessed shockingly high levels of attrition in last few years in a major blow to the government’s war against the rebels.

Extended working hours, scant vacation days and long periods spent in the jungles hunting down the ultras have taken their toll on the force. Alarm bells have started ringing in North Block with as many as 13,658 CRPF personnel leaving the job between 2009 and 2012. While the number of personnel seeking alternative avenues has come down in other central paramilitary forces (CPMF) like the Border Security Force and the Indo Tibetan Border Police, the upward trend of premature retirement in the CRPF has left the home ministry worried.

In 2012 alone, 4,876 CRPF personnel gave up their jobs – a huge increase from the previous two years, when the numbers remained below 3,000. The ‘exodus’ has become a major source of concern as it can have a direct bearing on anti- Maoist operations. Sources said a major reason for the high attrition rate in the CRPF is the ongoing fight against Maoists. ”

In the last four years, we have been more aggressive against the Naxals. Continuous operations have been launched. We have got success but also suffered losses in the process. Perhaps this could be one reason for people opting out,” a CRPF officer said. Over the last few years, there have been major encounters with Maoists where the CRPF lost its men in big numbers. The attacks in Dantewada (Chhattisgarh), Gadchiroli (Maharashtra) and, more recently, Latehar ( Jharkhand) where the force suffered heavy losses have left deep scars on the psyche of its personnel.

Former officers who have been part of the paramilitary forces feel CRPF’s expansion over the years has not kept pace with infrastructural demands. ” No proper accommodation, no mobile connectivity even access to basic supplies can be tough. There are no peace postings, all this can take a toll on the rank and file,” said former BSF director general Prakash Singh. Singh said the lack of good leadership and ability to inspire jawans had also been a dampener for the force.

“Whether North- East, Jammu and Kashmir or Naxal-hit states, the jawans are moved around frequently to hazardous surroundings,” a CRPF officer said. Dr Sameer Malhotra, head of psychiatry at Max Healtcare, said: ” In any organisation, attrition rate depends on the quality of life. Whether the actual conditions one is facing are able to match the aspirations. If one does not get rewards for the effort and risk, the attrition rate is likely to be high.”

In an attempt to ensure that CRPF jawans don’t leave the force, the home ministry has decided a strategy of recruiting men mainly from Naxal affected states. The home ministry had commissioned a study last year to look into the reasons for premature retirements in paramilitary forces. The findings of the study revealed that lack of sleep, manpower crunch, no leaves and lack of motivation were among some of the reasons responsible for personnel quitting their jobs.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/crpf-attrition-rate-govt-war-against-maoists/1/271300.html

In response to the government's failure to end the rebellion, and the weaking of their forces. The Maoists are planning a counter-attack

‘Naxals gear up for pan-India presence’

Naxals have launched major initiatives to achieve their mission of having a pan India presence, intelligence sources said here on Friday. The initiatives included preparation of an email data bank of Naxal sympathisers and supporters across India besides compilation of data on its cadres in various states in the country.

“We have received information that Naxals are preparing a databank of their supporters and sympathisers across India through their local networks with an objective to tapping them when needed. This apart, the CPI (Maoist) has also begun a move to prepare a data bank of their cadres in various states for strategic reason,” a senior intelligence officer told this newspaper.

Maoists have also gone hi-tech to upgrade their weaponry. Intelligence inputs received at the state police headquarters said the Naxals have acquired technology to trigger blasts with voice or wireless sets. They have also developed paper bombs. “A huge bundle of paper bombs have recently been recovered in a jungle in Magadh range in Bihar. Following this, we have alerted our security forces not to touch Maoist posters without screening them,” the police officer said.

It has also been revealed that the Maoists have started using high frequency communication system. Security forces were yet to acquire technology to intercept signals of the system. What worried the police the most was the latest tactic adopted by Maoists in which they have been sending threat mails to senior police officers deployed in anti-Naxal operations through their proxy servers, being operated from secret places. Several such incidents have been reported in conflict zone of Bastar in recent time, the police officer said.

http://www.asianage.com/india/naxals-gear-pan-india-presence-921

So I do think that overall there is a chance that they can turn the tides, considering how flexible their strategy has been.

But of course, this isn't the basis that we should support them on. It is not relevant if they win, after all the Paris Commune resulted in the deaths of thousands of proletarians. The reason why we should support them is that they are a revolutionary force fighting against oppression.


Even if they could win, it would be a complete dead end. There's nothing revolutionary at all about changing the managers of capital.

In response to this non-argument, I'll simply quote the Programme of the Communist Party of India Maoist:


"No intervening stage of bourgeois dictatorship will come between the stages of New Democracy and Socialism."

Of course this will not satisfy you, because you want the world to bend to your will, instead of looking at the world through your mind.


This analysis has nothing to do with Marxism.

It shows

[Tim Cornelis]

In response to this non-argument, I'll simply quote the Programme of the Communist Party of India Maoist:

That does not prove the Maoists will not manage capital.


It shows

How cheap. Please inform me how to integrate Marxist analysis into doubting 60,000 rebels can beat 4,000,000 armed personnel.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

That does not prove the Maoists will not manage capital.


Nor has anything been said that they will manage capital. The sword strikes both ways until they have been given the chance to prove themselves, and that can only come if they are victorious.

Still, I'll be honest. The only reason why half of the arm chair critics can keep their revolutionary credentials is because they haven't tried to prove them yet. If everyone here thinks their tendency is so much better than Maoism, then show me through practice. I don't buy it when *Insert Sectarian Group Here* says they are more revolutionary than Maoism, because unlike the Naxalites, they haven't had a chance to fail. Likewise, if you, (and me) and the rest of the arm chair critics went to revolutionary war right now, you would have a similar chance of degenerating as the Maoists do now, despite how much you want to claimer how your version of Marxism is "purer".


How cheap. Please inform me how to integrate Marxist analysis into doubting 60,000 rebels can beat 4,000,000 armed personnel.


I'll admit it was a cheep shot. I do try to hold myself to a higher standard than that so I'll admit my poor manners in this regard.


I think this statement comes from a poor conception of what a revolution was. Lenin didn't fall from the heavens to lead the Russian Revolution, the Russian Revolution was a long process of hard work, debate, and class struggle that began far before the seizure of power. Revolution is a process that has no definitive beginning or end. So yes, you are half correct in saying that they can not beat the state right now, just like Lenin would be unable to overthrow the government if he and his buddies in the "League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class" went guns ablazing in the streets of Moscow in 1895, he would have failed catastrophically. So yes they can not overthrow the government yet, but revolution is a process where that is simply a goal to be accomplished gradually, and as only one minor goal within the revolutionary process which encompasses more than a military maneuver.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The guerrilla and the conventional army is around a lakh or more.


FYI people outside of the Indian subcontinent have no fucking clue how much a "Lakh" is. It's a value (as far as I know) which is unique to the languages which descend from Sanskrit.



Many of the recent expansions are in places with little or no forest cover. The uprising in Nandigram was eventually defeated, but it lasted for several months, and that place is mostly a plane agricultural land. Lalgarh also has many non-jungle regions, and is witnessing a Maoist revival after the initial retreat. Narayanpatna in Orissa is again mostly agricultural land and is in a condition of dual power; much better than the previous two.That is interesting. It's clear that the Maoists have a lot of rural support in some areas. However, there are still vast swaths of rural India where Maoists are unheard of.


New democracy is not capitalism. Capitalism requires the bourgeoisie in power. The New Democratic Revolution has the working classes at its core.


No, Capitalism requires the alienation of the production of labor from the laborers for the purpose of expanding Capital. There would be no national bourgeoisie without capitalism.



I have mentioned many times before the Janathana Sirkars, People's Revolutionary Committees, People's Militia etc. The People's Courts that are held by these organizations of workers' power are well known even in the bourgeois media.These are interesting but they do not necessarily imply collective economic governance.


The Zapatistas have practically no fighting force left and don't wage war against the government anymore. They can open up their territories as much as they like and gain popularity for their pacifism.That's not true at all, the Zapatistas still maintain a fighting militia. Without that, paramilitaries would have overrun their camps ages ago and the government would have nothing to fear in just cracking down on them without minimal bloodshed.

Where did you hear that???


The CPI(Maoist) is the largest revolutionary group in the world today, and hence not many authors or journalists dare to involve themselves with it. There is no detailed report about the Maoist organs of people's power. What I said about the People's Court is that the mainstream media describes every decision-making gathering of the organs of people's power as a People's Court, which is inaccurate. Here are some more reports about the Janathana Sirkar, which again, are not detailed.
It may be (it's hard to say exactly what the largest rebel army is, however ... I'm guessing that's what you mean by "revolutionary group") but size alone means little. FARC was once much larger than it is today, and the reason it shrank was not its abandonment of a "people's war" but simple logistical realities. People with enfield rifles from the early 1900s will have a hard time overthrowing a state equipped with modern tanks and helicopters.



I replied to this earlier in this post. The Maoist army will be far larger by the time it fully overthrows the Indian state.
This seems like an assumption, not a provable fact.



The New Deomcratic Revolution consists of a bloc of four classes, the core of which are the two working classes; the proletariat and sections of the peasantry. The petty bourgeoisie or middle class is the third revolutionary class, and the left wing of the national bourgeoisie provides vacillating alliance. The participation of the national bourgeoisie is determined by its historical position on anti-imperialist struggles, and its need in industrialization. The degree of regulation or the stage in which the national bourgeoisie is to be excluded from the revolution, is a matter of debate. But still, New Democracy differs from capitalism in a crucial political point; that it is not the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by its definition. Of course, we know that this is the point that many shades of revisionists use again and again to attack Maoism, though their own groups have never engaged in revolutionary struggles anywhere and their defence of revisionism is even more pathetic than their practical failure.Why is the national bourgeoisie needed in industrialization? How is its role anti-imperialistic? These sound like arguments which Deng Xiaoping would have used to justify neoliberalism, not an argument a communist would make to justify socialist revolution. After what happened in China (and now Nepal) with the so-called "Capitalist roaders", I think people should be much more skeptical about the notion that this whole "New Democracy" program could ever actually lead to socialism without a further revolution against the original Maoist party.

A national bourgeoisie only exists insofar as labor is exploited from the workers to produce surplus value, which can be sold to buyers (presumably other capitalists, especially in those first world Imperialist countries which the national bourgeoisie is supposed to resist).

[Akshay!]

FYI people outside of the Indian subcontinent have no fucking clue how much a "Lakh" is. It's a value (as far as I know) which is unique to the languages which descend from Sanskrit.


1 lakh = 100,000

[Flying Purple People Eater]

And to those who've not yet read all the posts in the thread, here's an advice: skip everything that Tim Cornelis wrote. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Every single post clearly demonstrates that fact.

Oh the fucking irony!

Protip buddy: being an uncritical supporter of militant stalinist movements is not open-minded; it's dogmatic.

[Q]

It's my understanding that much (if not all) of these "liberated districts" are in rural areas or even just tracts of jungle. This poses a problem, from a Marxist point of view, about the self-emancipation of the working class.

First: The Naxalites consist mostly out of peasants (judging on the districts they control). Marx and Engels made the case that only the working class - that class that has as its only economic possession its own labour power - has an interest in carrying out the revolution to its very end. I'll assume that the reasons are clear and don't need elaboration.

Second. Even if there was a huge influx of working class members, the militaristic structure on which the Naxalites - a necessity of guerrilla struggle - means that proletarian members can't operate as a collective, therefore can't start the work of self-emancipation. A military command structure - in this case I suspect that we have lots of isolated cells taking orders from a command center - just does not allow for democratic republican culture to develop.

Worse still, say that the Naxalites win the day and topple the Indian government. What would that mean? Leaving from the historical experience that the winning party imposes its structures and its culture upon society, we can only conclude that this would mean a military dictatorship. No room there for proletarian rule.

[Akshay!]

And to those who've not yet read all the posts in the thread, here's an advice: skip everything that Tim Cornelis wrote. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Every single post clearly demonstrates that fact.
Oh the fucking irony!

Protip buddy: being an uncritical supporter of militant stalinist movements is not open-minded; it's dogmatic.

And that's exactly my point! There's a difference between criticizing the movement and opposing the movement. I'm not an "uncritical supporter" - as you can see on the previous page - I asked about a dozen questions and made a few criticisms. That's different from fundamentally opposing the movement (which, imho, is worse than being an imperialist).

[Tim Cornelis]

And that's exactly my point! There's a difference between criticizing the movement and opposing the movement. I'm not an "uncritical supporter" - as you can see on the previous page - I asked about a dozen questions and made a few criticisms. That's different from fundamentally opposing the movement (which, imho, is worse than being an imperialist).

So I oppose a movement, that's what discussions are for, that's what, you know, internet discussion forums are for. If you're not interested in discussions you may be interested in retreating to ideologically homogeneous circle jerk sessions. Or do you expect me to follow any movement claiming some dubious alignment with anticapitalism? I'm sure there's plenty of self-proclaimed anticapitalist parties and organisations you do not support.

[Rusty Shackleford]

CPN(M) was being considered as revisionist by many from 2006 itself, and revisionist elements within its theory were identified about 3 years prior to that. This of course alienates the CPI(Maoist) from many, but wrong statements or lines like the recent one from Gajurel or some from our respected Filipino comrades will not emerge from here.

CPN(M)? i apologize for not looking into it right now, but is that not the faction that broke from the UCPN(M) after they became head of government? Isnt the CPN(M) the organization that is aligned with Kiran?


Also, how are the relations with the NDF/NPA in the Philippines?




Second. Even if there was a huge influx of working class members, the militaristic structure on which the Naxalites - a necessity of guerrilla struggle - means that proletarian members can't operate as a collective, therefore can't start the work of self-emancipation. A military command structure - in this case I suspect that we have lots of isolated cells taking orders from a command center - just does not allow for democratic republican culture to develop.



Ill take a stab at this and reference the 30s in China. There is the Party and the Army, they did achieve the ability to blend with each other and the people, the soviet districts in china had workers organizations with workers unions(and womens unions and even childrens unions!) to develop the process of workers control. This also went along side the development of basic industry in the sides of mountains, armaments, garments, and so on.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

1 lakh = 100,000

I know, I just wasn't sure if ind_com was aware of the fact that Westerners aren't familiar with the term

[ind_com]

Note: I just start writing responding to each claim. It may be that I criticise one point while you have actually already addressed it further below in your comment.

Nonsense. Capitalism is a mode of production. Any system where the bourgeoisie exists, implies a capitalist mode of production. The Labour Parties also had the working class at its core, but this in itself does not prove it is not capitalistic.

The bourgeoisie also existed in feudal systems. Does that imply that feudalism is actually capitalism?



I don't see how or why "bourgeois view" would do say, it could very well realistically evaluate the odds of a communist or far-left group winning.

Well indeed I did not consider it would grow (which is simply an obvious mistake, it has nothing to do with 'Marxist' analysis).

Saying it is stupid is not a substitute for an argument. Sources suggest the areas in which the Naxalites are active has diminished. For example, sourced claims on wikipedia state:

“In 2009, Naxalites were active across approximately 180 districts in ten states of India.[10] In August 2010, after the first full year of implementation of the national IAP program, Karnataka was removed from the list of naxal affected states.[11] In July 2011, the number of Naxal affected areas was reduced to (figure includes proposed addition of 20 districts) 83 districts across nine states.[12][13][14] In December 2011, the national government reported that the number of Naxalite related deaths and injuries nationwide had gone down by nearly 50% from 2010 levels.[15]”YABM's answer suffices for this part.



Yes, I already mentioned the people's courts. They are only in a limited sense organs of workers' power, their scope is limited. Are there decision-making bodies of workers and peasants?
Janathana Sirkars gives 5 results to vague blogs, googling People's Revolutionary Committees + Naxalites gives no source mentioning them, a People's Milita is military and is not what I'm looking for (obviously I know the Naxalites have armed power).
I think I have told you this earlier a few months back, but I will repeat this again. What the media calls People's Court is not always a People's Court. Every gathering of Maoists with the villagers tends to be called a People's Court by the media. Most of these are actually the process of decision making by the working classes, which Maoists participate in and protect. These gatherings become the People's Court only when the sessions are mainly devoted to solving disputes or trying the accused.

Sorry about the JS and RPCs, but there is an old CPI(Maoist) document on the JS, which you can get from signalfire.org.

The People's Militia is not only a military force, but also a body for administration and production. In places where a considerable amount of population has been armed, there is practically no difference between the worker's assemblies and militia.



I only coincidentally found something interesting. Googling People's Committee and Naxalites brought up the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities (PCAPA), I assumed it was not a Naxalite organisation but decided to google it anyway. Which resulted in: Operation Lalgarh.

“Grassroots Democracy
The movement had no conventional leadership and often entire village population sat together and discussed for hours as to the steps to be taken in the movement[citation needed]. Men, women, youth, students all took part in these grand meetings. The traditional leaders were not stripped of the respect that they usually received but were given no more weight than anyone else at the meetings[citation needed]. A forum was thus launched which had no conventional political color and which united the entire adivasi society for a common cause after a long time. It gained immense popularity and most mainstream parties and their mass bases vanished altogether.
Village committees [edit]

Each Village formed a committee of 10 representatives who would with committees of other villages to communicate the decision of the masses of one village to another. Each committee further had two persons who had to be available at all times in case of urgent meetings at short notices[citation needed].”

Which sounds interesting and promising. However, it does not appear to be a permanent movement. Moreover, though the Maoists supported this, it does not appear the movement or operation itself was Maoist (as is also mentioned on the wiki-page itself). Additionally, it does not give any source for the claims of village committees and democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lalgarh

Now I'd be interested in knowing if village committees and popular assemblies have been organised by the Naxalites.To understand what is meant by a Maoist mass organization, it is necessary to know what the CPI(Maoist) upholds Maoism. It upholds the model of the GPCR, which it believes is necessary from very early stages of the revolution. Therefore, it believes that the masses play a distinct role in maintaining the purity of the party and the revolution itself. So, in general, a Maoist mass organization might not be directly controlled by the CPI(Maoist). These can be mass organizations in which Maoism has an ideological dominance, and has moulded most of the participants according to that ideological line of revolution. Thus, it can simply be a mass organization which has lots of Maoists, and agrees in practice with the Maoist short-term programme. It is this reliance on the power of the masses to identify the correct political line, that enables the CPI(Maoist) to come back very quickly from areas lost to the state, or the Maoist movement to continue in areas that have been separated from the higher leadership for years.


That was not the point, my point was information about its governing structure is readily available. Also, I believe fighting should not be initiated in advance of the existence of bodies of workers' power.


A bit off topic, I would form party unit first, then mass organisation, then a 'JS', and then defend it through forming military units.This depends on the area of operation. If the armed forces react within some days or hours, then fighting must start first.







Yes, the village committees and democracy mentioned on the wiki-article sounds good. My question would be, to what extent to the Naxalites support such a system, do they view it as a germ of the future society? This question is probably too in-depth to find a reliable source on though.



Well two issues here, they have to be much larger in order to overthrow it, and second IF they overthrow it. Of which I'm not confident at all.



You're mixing up the superstructure and mode of production. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is superstructure, capitalism is mode of production. Even if there is no dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there is still capitalism. The haute bourgeoisie is not need in industrialisation, such can be achieved by the workers.
That last sentence was a tu quoque fallacy.

That way you have capitalism as long as people are paid wages, and which would imply that even Lenin was a capitalist. For all practical purposes, we must distinguish between systems that have different classes in command of the politics.


In conclusion, I disagree with the New Democracy, I disagree with the people's war and would use military force only after workers' power and not vice versa, I support village committees and workers' power, insofar it can be called that. But as long as the Maoists continue to advocate class collaboration it is difficult to speak of workers' power, and difficult for me to extend even my critical support. Additionally, many sources confirm their brutish and coercive tactics which I cannot support. I still do not think the Naxalites (remember, irrespective of ideological convictions) have the means to overthrow the Indian government now, and don't expect that to change tomorrow.These positions basically stem from lack of practice. Try to start a big enough organization of workers wherever you are to overthrow the bourgeois state, and see what happens.

[ind_com]

CPN(M)? i apologize for not looking into it right now, but is that not the faction that broke from the UCPN(M) after they became head of government? Isnt the CPN(M) the organization that is aligned with Kiran?

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to what is known as the UCPN(M) now. It was known as the CPN(M) back then.



Also, how are the relations with the NDF/NPA in the Philippines?

Awesome. :)

[ind_com]

FYI people outside of the Indian subcontinent have no fucking clue how much a "Lakh" is. It's a value (as far as I know) which is unique to the languages which descend from Sanskrit.


Thanks, I will remember that.


That is interesting. It's clear that the Maoists have a lot of rural support in some areas. However, there are still vast swaths of rural India where Maoists are unheard of.Very true.


No, Capitalism requires the alienation of the production of labor from the laborers for the purpose of expanding Capital. There would be no national bourgeoisie without capitalism.Noe necessarily, the national bourgeoisie existed during the feudal period.


These are interesting but they do not necessarily imply collective economic governance.Very true. Let's assume that these organizations exist for playing football then.


That's not true at all, the Zapatistas still maintain a fighting militia. Without that, paramilitaries would have overrun their camps ages ago and the government would have nothing to fear in just cracking down on them without minimal bloodshed.

Where did you hear that???When was the last big fight they had, again?


It may be (it's hard to say exactly what the largest rebel army is, however ... I'm guessing that's what you mean by "revolutionary group") but size alone means little. No, I meant a revolutionary group when I said a revolutionary group.


FARC was once much larger than it is today, and the reason it shrank was not its abandonment of a "people's war" but simple logistical realities. People with enfield rifles from the early 1900s will have a hard time overthrowing a state equipped with modern tanks and helicopters.The PLGA has its own stuff to match that, but thanks for your concerns. Also, the FARC did not follow the line of maintaining a base force for armed struggle.


This seems like an assumption, not a provable fact.True again. The present PLGA members might grow extra muscles and defeat the many times large Indian National Army.


Why is the national bourgeoisie needed in industrialization? How is its role anti-imperialistic? These sound like arguments which Deng Xiaoping would have used to justify neoliberalism, not an argument a communist would make to justify socialist revolution. After what happened in China (and now Nepal) with the so-called "Capitalist roaders", I think people should be much more skeptical about the notion that this whole "New Democracy" program could ever actually lead to socialism without a further revolution against the original Maoist party.

A national bourgeoisie only exists insofar as labor is exploited from the workers to produce surplus value, which can be sold to buyers (presumably other capitalists, especially in those first world Imperialist countries which the national bourgeoisie is supposed to resist).This is a seriously good point. Parts of the national bourgeoisie have indeed supported anti-imperialist struggles in India and abroad, but it is obvious that they will not be needed if the working classes themselves can manage to industrialize. What is clear at this point is that the role of the national bourgeoisie will be much less in significance than in China, because of the historical route of the Indian Revolution.

It is also unclear that given the experience in the last century and having seen the communists' tendency to expropriate the national bourgeoisie at a later stage, whether any considerable alliance will develop at all. If no significant left wing emerges within the national bourgeoisie, then the working classes might be compelled to carry on the industrialization process by themselves. All this is difficult to predict at this point, and it seems logical that at least until the nationwide victory of the revolution, the Communist Party should be flexible towards an alliance with any anti-imperialist section of the national bourgeoisie.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Noe necessarily, the national bourgeoisie existed during the feudal period.
a bourgeoisie did exist in the feudal times, yes. How was the development of capitalism and feudal relatins in India during the european middle ages and pre-colonization?


The PLGA has its own stuff to match that, but thanks for your concerns. Also, the FARC did not follow the line of maintaining a base force for armed struggle.

True again. The present PLGA members might grow extra muscles and defeat the many times large Indian National Army.

Yet to also give a bit of criticism to Sinister Cultural Marxist on this, a-symmetric carfare has been something very difficult for even the strongest and most organized military in the history of humanity to overcome. The US lost in Vietnam, didnt really win in Iraq aside from overthrowing Saddam and opening markets, and is still grinding its nose against the wheel in Afghanistan. Though the FNL in vietnam was far more organized and much better armed than the fedayeen(though the fed was pretty organized and armed alright, they were still using old toyotas) or various religious militant groups in Iraq, or the hundreds of resistance groups in Afghanistan, it still shows that just the effect of fighting on their own terms forces their enemies into confusion.


That being said, an old enfield is just as dangerous as anything else. There was a woman who basically held down an entire police unit with an enfield. and that thing is so quiet and easy to operate (the bolt, not firing) that its no wonder that even in a field she could kill more than 3 police.


This is a seriously good point. Parts of the national bourgeoisie have indeed supported anti-imperialist struggles in India and abroad, but it is obvious that they will not be needed if the working classes themselves can manage to industrialize. What is clear at this point is that the role of the national bourgeoisie will be much less in significance than in China, because of the historical route of the Indian Revolution.

It is also unclear that given the experience in the last century and having seen the communists' tendency to expropriate the national bourgeoisie at a later stage, whether any considerable alliance will develop at all. If no significant left wing emerges within the national bourgeoisie, then the working classes might be compelled to carry on the industrialization process by themselves. All this is difficult to predict at this point, and it seems logical that at least until the nationwide victory of the revolution, the Communist Party should be flexible towards an alliance with any anti-imperialist section of the national bourgeoisie.

Maybe in a world of near total capitalist dominance, and after another century of capitalist development globally, the issue of aligning with the national bourgeoisie in such scenarios might be useless? If infrastructure is so developed, if factories are so numerous, if deposits are so well surveyed, then who needs the post-revolution investor? Obviously India has its unique challenges, but it has a much more sustainable agricultural and industrial base and all that, yes? It is not as subjected to the UK as some African states yes?

[Vercingetorix]

Every single democracy on this planet has a vested interest in the maintenance of the Indian democratic state.

The United States, Nato Members, The UK, Russia, France, Germany and the rest of the European Union are all providing military, economic, and technological support to the Indian state to work on internal economic and social development, from the building of schools, to the building of intercontinental ballistic missiles and a space program.

They're also doing what they can to push China in a Democratic and Capitalist direction.

The Naxalites are outdated, outgunned, and outargued.

They will not be successful. Even if they were effective and intelligent, their success would only be a remote chance.

Social change will only come to India when the world as a whole moves to a sustainable post-capitalist system. There are too many incredibly powerful vested interests propping up the Indian state.