Log in

View Full Version : India



REDdog
24th April 2007, 06:51
I would like every one of you share your views about India, what ever it may be, especially about the left parties and their wrong strategies. I am from India myself and now I am totally confused about what should be done in India. The CPI(M) and the CPI are the main Left parties in India, but I dont find anything revolutionary in their ideas and actions.

I am also looking to join some Left parties or groups and I follow the principles of Marxism, Leninism and Trotskyism. What do you think is the right thing to do? The Trotskyites organizations in India are very weak and the main stream left parties more reformists than revolutionaries. At present I am looking forward to join Socialist Alternative (http://socialism.in), the Indian sect of the CWI (http://socialistworld.net). What do you think? And I would also like to hear other suggestions.
Thank You.

Vargha Poralli
24th April 2007, 16:14
Well as an Indian myself I share your confusion.

Our country is so much complex and contradictory in every matters(both historically and current) that makes really hard to analyse any situation in any method. It is more divided than the whole world and the first task of Communists should be strengthening this unity in diversity against attacks from Sangh Parivar,Casteist and Religious fanatical groups.


I am also looking to join some Left parties or groups and I follow the principles of Marxism, Leninism and Trotskyism.

I think there is no difference between these three. IMO it is plain enough to say Marxism as both Lenin and Trotsky considered themselves as one.


What do you think is the right thing to do? The Trotskyites organizations in India are very weak and the main stream left parties more reformists than revolutionaries.

This is the thing that had made me to work along with AITUC and SFI. And IMO it is the leadership of CPI and CPI(M) which is reformist not the rank and file. Reagrdles of the strategies we have to reach out to them to make our efforts worthwhile.


At present I am looking forward to join Socialist Alternative, the Indian sect of the CWI. What do you think?

I had some correspondence with them too.They are more centeredaroung Banglore and Kolkotta.


And I would also like to hear other suggestions.

Well this not my sugesstion but made to me by another Comrade who posts in this board.


I don't have a simple instant answer! And tactics have to be decided on the spot, case-by-case.

I think the official CPs have been reformist for a long time, and in a way it's positive they're becoming more openly reformist. When people start looking for revolutionary perspectives, they'll look elsewhere. In the past, revolutionary-minded workers and young people were more easily misled by fake revolutionaries, and by the bureaucratic regimes that supported them.

I think there are a lot of positive developments in the world; all over Latin America especially workers are fighting back and the capitalists are forced to back up and put on a left or social-democratic mask. Even in India, hasn't this happened some, with some backlash against the BJP?

I think it's necessary to join whatever workers' struggles and mass actions are going on, for a beginning - try to make the connections between the different forms of exploitation and oppression. Point out how each particular struggle, in order to achieve its own goals, has to be linked with others in a larger revolutionary effort. Part of making those connections can be building revolutionary parties; reading, discussing, and circulating revolutionary literature.
................

I hope that helped some. I really can't answer all these things for you. As you act and gain experience, you'll come to your own conclusions. Don't feel like you have to have everything figured out from the start.

OneBrickOneVoice
25th April 2007, 00:03
you should join the naxalites... Trotskyism is nice but in a country where there is a revolutionary movement actually in the process of revolution, all individuals should be behind it. India is pretty big and the naxalites aren't active everywhere

REDdog
26th April 2007, 07:03
Thank you very much for your suggestions, comrades.

seraphim
26th April 2007, 12:35
IMHO the biggest obstacle you have to get over in India is the caste system, it's deeply ingrained in Indian culture and the Indian psyche. It's difficult (though not impossible) to formulate a strategy to conteract something so deeply entrenched in the general populous.

The focus must start with the young, as an example arranged marriges are gradually becomming less and less common as the younger generations realise that marrying for love creates a stronger bond.

If the younger generations of Indians can be shown that leftist politics are better for them and of bennefit to the whole of Indian society then there is no reason why things cannot change.

Cheung Mo
26th April 2007, 19:27
Too bad so many urban youth in India bought into that India Shining garbage and supported fascist parties like the BJP and ShivSena last election.

RedArmyFaction
27th April 2007, 17:35
Hi comrades,

I'm Indian and i see India as generally a fascist right wing country. People keep saying India is the worlds biggest democracy. What kind of a democracy allows widespead compilance with the caste system which is racist and doesn't allow high castes to mix with low castes ? Also India has silly laws like not being able to show affection in public. Also, the prolateriat are being heavily exploited by the their bourgeoisie masters by being forced to work for next to nothing while their masters keep all of the profits. I could go on and on.
The prolateriat workers in India are in their millions, so it's easy to win their support.You win the prolateriat, you win India. India in my opinion is the best place in the world for a revolution because the oppressed outnumber the oppressors.
What political system should be installed ? Easy............Maoism. Marxism would totally cripple the booming Indian market economy and reduce living standards to below tolerable. In Maoism, and contary to Marxism, capital is embraced, hence, China's booming economy.
I look at what China was before Communism and what it is now and i'm in admiration for Mao. He's ended oppression of the peasantry, developed the economy and he's given women the same rights as men.

Whitten
27th April 2007, 18:42
India in my opinion is the best place in the world for a revolution because the oppressed outnumber the oppressors.

That is true of Every country in the world. The oppressed always outnumber the oppressors. Although I dont disagree that India is a key spot for future revolution.


Marxism would totally cripple the booming Indian market economy and reduce living standards to below tolerable. In Maoism, and contary to Marxism, capital is embraced, hence, China's booming economy.

Maoism has very little to do with China's current economy, thats the work of Deng Xiaoping and his followers, who was denounced by Mao as being a capitalist revisionist.

Vargha Poralli
27th April 2007, 18:49
I'm Indian and i see India as generally a fascist right wing country.

Yes that is why in 2004 BJP despite of the Kargil,Pokhran and India shines propaganda got its ass kicked.


the caste system which is racist and doesn't allow high castes to mix with low castes ?

Do you really live in India ? Because what you said was true some 30-40 years back but it seems that time has frozen up for you.


What political system should be installed ? Easy............Maoism. Marxism would totally cripple the booming Indian market economy and reduce living standards to below tolerable. In Maoism, and contary to Marxism, capital is embraced, hence, China's booming economy.
I look at what China was before Communism and what it is now and i'm in admiration for Mao. He's ended oppression of the peasantry, developed the economy and he's given women the same rights as men.

In between this load of stupidity you have posted you have shown that what type of India you want. My advice would be learn about some thing better before showing off your stupidity.

Vargha Poralli
27th April 2007, 18:52
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 26, 2007 11:57 pm
Too bad so many urban youth in India bought into that India Shining garbage and supported fascist parties like the BJP and ShivSena last election.
I think either time has stuck up for you are you have no habit of reading something before vomiting your idiocy.

And even the victory for BJP in 1999 elections was not because Indian became fascists but because of the failure of Keynesian and Neo Liberal policies of Congress which ruled almost for 50 years.

Cheung Mo
28th April 2007, 00:31
Originally posted by g.ram+April 27, 2007 05:52 pm--> (g.ram @ April 27, 2007 05:52 pm)
Cheung [email protected] 26, 2007 11:57 pm
Too bad so many urban youth in India bought into that India Shining garbage and supported fascist parties like the BJP and ShivSena last election.
I think either time has stuck up for you are you have no habit of reading something before vomiting your idiocy.

And even the victory for BJP in 1999 elections was not because Indian became fascists but because of the failure of Keynesian and Neo Liberal policies of Congress which ruled almost for 50 years. [/b]
The BJP still did well among urban youth even in 2004...It was rural voters whose poverty and squalour worsened under BJP rule that send them to defeat (not that its realistic to expect significant improvement from policies of the INC and its allies)...But in many crucial ways, Congress is as bad as the BJP and when in power has been willing to exploit tribalism and communalism as a means of furthering the interests of the bourgeoisie

Niemand
28th April 2007, 01:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:35 pm

What political system should be installed ? Easy............Maoism. Marxism would totally cripple the booming Indian market economy and reduce living standards to below tolerable. In Maoism, and contary to Marxism, capital is embraced, hence, China's booming economy.
I look at what China was before Communism and what it is now and i'm in admiration for Mao. He's ended oppression of the peasantry, developed the economy and he's given women the same rights as men.
That's the problem with you Maoist "comrades", you have absolutely no comprehension of authentic marxism and embrace the revisionism that exists in China as communism. Because clearly China is totally on its way to communism and has in no way, shape or form been corrupted by capital. :rolleyes:


But, I digress to the original point to this thread. I believe that an authentic Communist Party, i.e. not Stalinist or Maoist, from taking power whilst spouting violent revolution is very unlikely due to the personality cult in India around Gandhi. Hopefully, our Indian comrades realise that Gandhi only succeeded because the British thought of India as a mere distraction as they fought the Nazis in Europe. Pacifism, I believe, is a tool created and propagated by the bourgeoisie to neuter the working class.

REDdog
28th April 2007, 06:06
How many of you guys are aware of the Nandigram issue? Please read the link which I have provided below.

India: Nandigram the brutal massacre of peasants at the hands of the Left front government (http://www.marxist.com/india-nandigram-massacre-peasants060407-2.htm)


What political system should be installed ? Easy............Maoism. Marxism would totally cripple the booming Indian market economy and reduce living standards to below tolerable. In Maoism, and contary to Marxism, capital is embraced, hence, China's booming economy.


Maoism has nothing to do with Chinas booming economy and also the Maoists in India are against globalization and other neo liberal policies, that doesnt mean that I am for globalization.

Vargha Poralli
28th April 2007, 15:36
Originally posted by Cheung Mo+April 28, 2007 05:01 am--> (Cheung Mo @ April 28, 2007 05:01 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:52 pm

Cheung [email protected] 26, 2007 11:57 pm
Too bad so many urban youth in India bought into that India Shining garbage and supported fascist parties like the BJP and ShivSena last election.
I think either time has stuck up for you are you have no habit of reading something before vomiting your idiocy.

And even the victory for BJP in 1999 elections was not because Indian became fascists but because of the failure of Keynesian and Neo Liberal policies of Congress which ruled almost for 50 years.
The BJP still did well among urban youth even in 2004...It was rural voters whose poverty and squalour worsened under BJP rule that send them to defeat (not that its realistic to expect significant improvement from policies of the INC and its allies)...But in many crucial ways, Congress is as bad as the BJP and when in power has been willing to exploit tribalism and communalism as a means of furthering the interests of the bourgeoisie[/b]
Again generalising. BJP's base in mainly in Hindi Speaking northen states. It is almost zero in the non Hindi speakin states.


The BJP still did well among urban youth even in 2004...

Not general urban youth. Only those who are unemployed and think that Muslims are the reason for their miseries. And thankfully their numbers are not too much.


.But in many crucial ways, Congress is as bad as the BJP and when in power has been willing to exploit tribalism and communalism as a means of furthering the interests of the bourgeoisie

I can't disagree with you in this statement.


whilst spouting violent revolution is very unlikely due to the personality cult in India around Gandhi.

Gandhi is respected all over India for what he did. And the personality cult around Gandhi is not as you try to paint.If it had been and if everyone had really followed Gandhi's ideals then Babri Masjid Demolition,Bombay Blasts,Graham Steins murder and the Godhra and the following carnage would never had happened. The reason these incidents don't happen too often and didn't spread all over India has partly to do with Gandhi.


Hopefully, our Indian comrades realise that Gandhi only succeeded because the British thought of India as a mere distraction as they fought the Nazis in Europe.

What a great post. Your Knowledge about Freedom struggle of th Millions of Indians speaks in Volumes <_<

My best advice would be to better study something about it before you show that you are ignorant.


Pacifism, I believe, is a tool created and propagated by the bourgeoisie to neuter the working class.

Gandhi was not a pacifist.

He advocated Non-Violent resistance. Not non-resistance which is the core idea of Pacifism.


How many of you guys are aware of the Nandigram issue? Please read the link which I have provided below.


A good example of Chinese Model of Socialism in work :rolleyes: . You remember Buddhadeb claimed that China and Deng Xio Ping are his role models.

Socialism in one country screwed world revolutions.CPI(M)&#39;s socialism in one state is currently screwing the Indian Revolution.

Cheung Mo
28th April 2007, 16:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:06 am
How many of you guys are aware of the Nandigram issue? Please read the link which I have provided below.

India: Nandigram the brutal massacre of peasants at the hands of the Left front government (http://www.marxist.com/india-nandigram-massacre-peasants060407-2.htm)


What political system should be installed ? Easy............Maoism. Marxism would totally cripple the booming Indian market economy and reduce living standards to below tolerable. In Maoism, and contary to Marxism, capital is embraced, hence, China&#39;s booming economy.


Maoism has nothing to do with Chinas booming economy and also the Maoists in India are against globalization and other neo liberal policies, that doesnt mean that I am for globalization.
Personally, I think the IMT is being far too kind in taking a line that the CPI and CPI(M) are being led by social democrats: Trotsky would have called them fascists.

What the "communist" government is doing is no different than Prescott Bush&#39;s role in the building of the Auschwitz death camp. (He owned a steel manufacturing company and made a fortune building the raw materials that were used in Auschwitz&#39;s construction...) Working with Salim is the moral equivalent to working with Nazi-era Volkswagen, to use one of many examples of German corporations implicated in Nazi crimes against humanity: The Suharto government&#39;s massacres of communists, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities are exponentially worse than anything the Soviets did in Afghanistan and rival the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.

Niemand
28th April 2007, 18:19
Originally posted by g.ram+April 28, 2007 02:36 pm--> (g.ram @ April 28, 2007 02:36 pm)
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 28, 2007 05:01 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:52 pm

Cheung [email protected] 26, 2007 11:57 pm
Too bad so many urban youth in India bought into that India Shining garbage and supported fascist parties like the BJP and ShivSena last election.
I think either time has stuck up for you are you have no habit of reading something before vomiting your idiocy.

And even the victory for BJP in 1999 elections was not because Indian became fascists but because of the failure of Keynesian and Neo Liberal policies of Congress which ruled almost for 50 years.
The BJP still did well among urban youth even in 2004...It was rural voters whose poverty and squalour worsened under BJP rule that send them to defeat (not that its realistic to expect significant improvement from policies of the INC and its allies)...But in many crucial ways, Congress is as bad as the BJP and when in power has been willing to exploit tribalism and communalism as a means of furthering the interests of the bourgeoisie
Again generalising. BJP&#39;s base in mainly in Hindi Speaking northen states. It is almost zero in the non Hindi speakin states.


The BJP still did well among urban youth even in 2004...

Not general urban youth. Only those who are unemployed and think that Muslims are the reason for their miseries. And thankfully their numbers are not too much.


.But in many crucial ways, Congress is as bad as the BJP and when in power has been willing to exploit tribalism and communalism as a means of furthering the interests of the bourgeoisie

I can&#39;t disagree with you in this statement.


whilst spouting violent revolution is very unlikely due to the personality cult in India around Gandhi.

Gandhi is respected all over India for what he did. And the personality cult around Gandhi is not as you try to paint.If it had been and if everyone had really followed Gandhi&#39;s ideals then Babri Masjid Demolition,Bombay Blasts,Graham Steins murder and the Godhra and the following carnage would never had happened. The reason these incidents don&#39;t happen too often and didn&#39;t spread all over India has partly to do with Gandhi.


Hopefully, our Indian comrades realise that Gandhi only succeeded because the British thought of India as a mere distraction as they fought the Nazis in Europe.

What a great post. Your Knowledge about Freedom struggle of th Millions of Indians speaks in Volumes <_<

My best advice would be to better study something about it before you show that you are ignorant.


Pacifism, I believe, is a tool created and propagated by the bourgeoisie to neuter the working class.

Gandhi was not a pacifist.

He advocated Non-Violent resistance. Not non-resistance which is the core idea of Pacifism.


How many of you guys are aware of the Nandigram issue? Please read the link which I have provided below.


A good example of Chinese Model of Socialism in work :rolleyes: . You remember Buddhadeb claimed that China and Deng Xio Ping are his role models.

Socialism in one country screwed world revolutions.CPI(M)&#39;s socialism in one state is currently screwing the Indian Revolution. [/b]
Well, I do conceed a very limited knowledge of Indian politics, which is most evident, but I got my impression of Gandhi in India only after seeing a few things on the subject. So I apologise for thinking that that was enough to form an opinion.

Vargha Poralli
28th April 2007, 19:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:49 pm
Well, I do conceed a very limited knowledge of Indian politics, which is most evident, but I got my impression of Gandhi in India only after seeing a few things on the subject. So I apologise for thinking that that was enough to form an opinion.
No problem with that.

Any how no one can write off the Indian Independence struggle as simple as it is. Many even in India think that British gave India freedom like a lollipop. Yes the majority of the Indians took a nonviolent approach to their struggle and India&#39;s many social problems still remains unresolved but that should not make Communists to piss at the Independence struggle just because it didn&#39;t fit in to their criteria of "Struggle".

And about Gandhi.He is just a man. A man who is a product of his time and his own thought. I don&#39;t say that he is the man of his mission. He did what he thought was right and took actions to achieve it. India and Indians needed a force to push its society forward in the dawn of the Capitalist age and under the colonial oppression. Gandhi simple became that factor. He fought more against the Social evils that made it easy for British to impose their rule in India. He is the first one to unite the India people. Even though he played a little role in final struggle of Independence without his historical role Indians would never made the British that their days of Empire are over.

Labor Shall Rule
28th April 2007, 19:30
Originally posted by Cheung Mo+April 28, 2007 03:24 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ April 28, 2007 03:24 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 05:06 am
How many of you guys are aware of the Nandigram issue? Please read the link which I have provided below.

India: Nandigram the brutal massacre of peasants at the hands of the Left front government (http://www.marxist.com/india-nandigram-massacre-peasants060407-2.htm)


What political system should be installed ? Easy............Maoism. Marxism would totally cripple the booming Indian market economy and reduce living standards to below tolerable. In Maoism, and contary to Marxism, capital is embraced, hence, China&#39;s booming economy.


Maoism has nothing to do with Chinas booming economy and also the Maoists in India are against globalization and other neo liberal policies, that doesnt mean that I am for globalization.
Personally, I think the IMT is being far too kind in taking a line that the CPI and CPI(M) are being led by social democrats: Trotsky would have called them fascists.

What the "communist" government is doing is no different than Prescott Bush&#39;s role in the building of the Auschwitz death camp. (He owned a steel manufacturing company and made a fortune building the raw materials that were used in Auschwitz&#39;s construction...) Working with Salim is the moral equivalent to working with Nazi-era Volkswagen, to use one of many examples of German corporations implicated in Nazi crimes against humanity: The Suharto government&#39;s massacres of communists, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities are exponentially worse than anything the Soviets did in Afghanistan and rival the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime. [/b]
I would suggest that you read Fascism: What It Is and How to Fight It. I would hate to be accused of nitpicking; ignoring what you completely wrote while going off the intended subject of this thread, but I think your statement is fundamentally incorrect. In the introduction of this work, George Lavan Weissman sums up what I am about to tell you.


George Lavan Weissman wrote:
The Communist movement was still on its ultra-left binge (the so-called Third Period) when the Nazi movement began to snowball. To the Stalinists, every capitalist party was automatically "fascist". Even more catastrophic than this disorienting of the workers was Stalin&#39;s famous dictum that, rather than being opposites, fascism and social democracy were "twins". The socialists were thereupon dubbed "social fascists" and regarded as the main enemy. Of course, there could be no united front with social-fascist organizations, and those who, like Trotsky, urged such united fronts, were also labeled social fascists and treated accordingly.

In other words, I think you should suggest otherwise, and take the burden of such an accusation off of the back of Trotsky.

But to get on the topic of India, I think an endorsement of the Naxallites would be disastrous for the workers. In February, the Naxalites blew up a truck carrying striking workers back from a rally, while also killing more than 50 people. They usher from a semi-literate peasantry that is struggling to maintain their social relations amidst an attempt by the bourgeoisie to introduce industrialization to the forested area. They have targeted power stations, steel mills; attacked mines, blown up electricity pylons, and have torched cars. It is clear that their objective is to preserve their class; the peasantry that is facing displacement and forceful eviction through the expansion of capitalist production into their tribal areas. I don&#39;t think we should recognize this as some sort of revolutionary movement, in that it wants to preserve the archaic and destitute past.

The class composition of India is mostly that of peasants, agricultural laborers, and other petty artisans; with the urban working class composing of only 21% of the entire population. There is clear proof of erosion of workers real earnings, which in a decade has fallen drastically to less than half, so we can expect the class divide to increase in a few years if this trend continues. But still, we have seen a weakening of working class organizations, and a decline in class action, such as strikes, walk-outs, and other forms of class struggle. I do not know the situation as well as I should, but I will look this subject up.

Vargha Poralli
29th April 2007, 18:21
Originally posted by RedDali+April 29, 2007 12:00 am--> (RedDali &#064; April 29, 2007 12:00 am)
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 28, 2007 03:24 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 05:06 am
How many of you guys are aware of the Nandigram issue? Please read the link which I have provided below.

India: Nandigram the brutal massacre of peasants at the hands of the Left front government (http://www.marxist.com/india-nandigram-massacre-peasants060407-2.htm)


What political system should be installed ? Easy............Maoism. Marxism would totally cripple the booming Indian market economy and reduce living standards to below tolerable. In Maoism, and contary to Marxism, capital is embraced, hence, China&#39;s booming economy.


Maoism has nothing to do with Chinas booming economy and also the Maoists in India are against globalization and other neo liberal policies, that doesnt mean that I am for globalization.
Personally, I think the IMT is being far too kind in taking a line that the CPI and CPI(M) are being led by social democrats: Trotsky would have called them fascists.

What the "communist" government is doing is no different than Prescott Bush&#39;s role in the building of the Auschwitz death camp. (He owned a steel manufacturing company and made a fortune building the raw materials that were used in Auschwitz&#39;s construction...) Working with Salim is the moral equivalent to working with Nazi-era Volkswagen, to use one of many examples of German corporations implicated in Nazi crimes against humanity: The Suharto government&#39;s massacres of communists, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities are exponentially worse than anything the Soviets did in Afghanistan and rival the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.
I would suggest that you read Fascism: What It Is and How to Fight It. I would hate to be accused of nitpicking; ignoring what you completely wrote while going off the intended subject of this thread, but I think your statement is fundamentally incorrect. In the introduction of this work, George Lavan Weissman sums up what I am about to tell you.


George Lavan Weissman wrote:
The Communist movement was still on its ultra-left binge (the so-called Third Period) when the Nazi movement began to snowball. To the Stalinists, every capitalist party was automatically "fascist". Even more catastrophic than this disorienting of the workers was Stalin&#39;s famous dictum that, rather than being opposites, fascism and social democracy were "twins". The socialists were thereupon dubbed "social fascists" and regarded as the main enemy. Of course, there could be no united front with social-fascist organizations, and those who, like Trotsky, urged such united fronts, were also labeled social fascists and treated accordingly.

In other words, I think you should suggest otherwise, and take the burden of such an accusation off of the back of Trotsky.

But to get on the topic of India, I think an endorsement of the Naxallites would be disastrous for the workers. In February, the Naxalites blew up a truck carrying striking workers back from a rally, while also killing more than 50 people. They usher from a semi-literate peasantry that is struggling to maintain their social relations amidst an attempt by the bourgeoisie to introduce industrialization to the forested area. They have targeted power stations, steel mills; attacked mines, blown up electricity pylons, and have torched cars. It is clear that their objective is to preserve their class; the peasantry that is facing displacement and forceful eviction through the expansion of capitalist production into their tribal areas. I don&#39;t think we should recognize this as some sort of revolutionary movement, in that it wants to preserve the archaic and destitute past.

The class composition of India is mostly that of peasants, agricultural laborers, and other petty artisans; with the urban working class composing of only 21% of the entire population. There is clear proof of erosion of workers real earnings, which in a decade has fallen drastically to less than half, so we can expect the class divide to increase in a few years if this trend continues. But still, we have seen a weakening of working class organizations, and a decline in class action, such as strikes, walk-outs, and other forms of class struggle. I do not know the situation as well as I should, but I will look this subject up.[/b]
First of all I would give a big thumbs up for you response to Cheung Mo.

But you are wrong like every one in your opinion about India.


In February, the Naxalites blew up a truck carrying striking workers back from a rally, while also killing more than 50 people.

Are you talking about this one ? (http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=62028)

Well that is the way usually Naxalites operate. Through terrorising those who don&#39;t agree with their views. That problem is precisely because of their religious commitement to Maoism. Their guerilla war against the Indian states is not a tactic they adopted because it is a material necessity but because Chairman Mao did it in China.


They have targeted power stations, steel mills; attacked mines, blown up electricity pylons, and have torched cars.

Obviously they themselves would do it when they gain the power. They see Indian government as an enemy state. So sabotage anything that would damage their "enemies".


the peasantry that is facing displacement and forceful eviction through the expansion of capitalist production into their tribal areas. I don&#39;t think we should recognize this as some sort of revolutionary movement, in that it wants to preserve the archaic and destitute past.

Really sorry to tell this but your analysis is totally bullshit. Naxalite support base is not the land owing peasant base which is mostly associated with Maosits but mostly of the most backward sections of the whole society who own nothing except their lives. They are also arguably the most oppressed in the entire world. I mostly criticise Naxalites for their wrong tactics and organisation which is very much a fact but your criticism of their class compostion is absolute ridiculous. Criticising Naxalites for their support base is like criticising people like Toussaint loverture and Emiliano Zapata for fighting against the real oppression.



The class composition of India is mostly that of peasants, agricultural laborers, and other petty artisans; with the urban working class composing of only 21% of the entire population. There is clear proof of erosion of workers real earnings, which in a decade has fallen drastically to less than half, so we can expect the class divide to increase in a few years if this trend continues. But still, we have seen a weakening of working class organizations, and a decline in class action, such as strikes, walk-outs, and other forms of class struggle. I do not know the situation as well as I should, but I will look this subject up.

This is where every body gets wrong. There is a proverb in Tamil about the Indian farmers that if a Farmer started making ledgure books then nothing would exist for even his own grinder. This shows how agriculture is seen by the illiterate farmers. Indian farmers through out the various historical phases of India never saw their occupation as profession but as a service to the Humanity. That is the reason why India from the Indus Valley civilisation to the current Industrial age supported more people than the entire world of those times. That is why Agri-business never took a boom in India and is still avoided by Capitalist as extracting profit from it would be very hard(especially in India) and is not worth the investment.

Sucide story 1 (http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/16farmer.htm)
Suicide story 2 (http://news.google.co.in/news/url?sa=t&ct=in/3-0&fp=46342a0fe0a32739&ei=tM00Rq_0MZbsqgOpy7z5BQ&url=http%3A//www.newkerala.com/news.php%3Faction%3Dfullnews%26id%3D22928&cid=1115800471)
Suicide Story 3 (http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=405964)

These links tell the story of farmers committing suicide despite the enormous income from the export of agricultural produce in India. This clearly tells that the Indian farmers are the one who is the most brutally raped by the Capitalist system more than the workers. This incident has been a very recent phenomenon which I think has been a repetition for almost ten years ever since the Narasimha Rao government started with the Neo Liberal "reforms" which was followed by all the governments ever since.

But despite this farmers still not yet started putting profit before everything. That is the reason why millions of Indian working class poor get to eat meal at least once a day. So taking out Indian farmers and their welfare just because they don&#39;t suit to our view of progress would be a disastrous mistake and would be the most mechanical application of Marxism which Marx himself strongly disagree. Forget about all the benefits of Industrialisation if there are no farmers there can be no workers to enjoy its great benefits.

OneBrickOneVoice
29th April 2007, 19:42
But to get on the topic of India, I think an endorsement of the Naxallites would be disastrous for the workers. In February, the Naxalites blew up a truck carrying striking workers back from a rally, while also killing more than 50 people

bull fucking shit. You mean cops? There&#39;s nothing in g.ram&#39;s source about killing striking workers, just setting up a road block. It seems like you just prefer to slander real revolutions because your movement has faied to be the ideology of any of them

I just don&#39;t get it. Why are trotskyist organizations so damn consistant and unrelenting at trying to slander other communist groups. From the Socialist Alternative link in the OP, to a Spart league paper I picked up a month ago

Labor Shall Rule
29th April 2007, 19:43
Really sorry to tell this but your analysis is totally bullshit. Naxalite support base is not the land owing peasant base which is mostly associated with Maosits but mostly of the most backward sections of the whole society who own nothing except their lives.

Are you sure about that? I am guessing that by asserting that the class composition of the Naxalites are the &#39;backward sections of the whole society who own nothing except their lives&#39;, you are suggesting that they come from the urban proletariat? This is simply not true. I will repeat myself: the Naxalites are agircultural laborers who usher from tribal areas that have a tight-nit relationship with their land; they are petit-bourgeois, in that they are struggling for the social preservation of their class. They are opposed to the landowners - with their large-landed properties that are connected with the intermediary of the banks that foreign capital holds a grasp over, but most of all, they are even more bitterly opposed to the collapse of the past that is associated with their historical redundancy. Sure, I will concede, they might be &#39;oppressed&#39;, but can we really make the argument that they are able to create socialism with their class interests? I would refer to a subject brought up within an unrelated thread on the Luddite movement from within England:

On Luddism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65784&st=25)

If I may sum that up, there might be &#39;oppressed&#39; classes, but none are compatible in creating socialism except the truly revolutionary class; the urban proletariat.

Rawthentic
29th April 2007, 19:43
He lives in India, or is from India you sectarian shit. That&#39;s for Henry, not Dali.

OneBrickOneVoice
30th April 2007, 03:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:43 pm
He lives in India, or is from India you sectarian shit. That&#39;s for Henry, not Dali.
um no Dali doesn&#39;t. He lives in America, He&#39;s a myspace friend of mine lol. And how am I being sectarian. You&#39;re the fucking asshole who pops around every thread just saying "Stalin is evil Z0mg" and not listening to anything anyone else says just ignoring it and continuing with your bankrupt rhetoric. As for him, he is the one who is claiming the naxalites are "petty bourgeios".


the Naxalites are agircultural laborers who usher from tribal areas that have a tight-nit relationship with their land; they are petit-bourgeois

no, they are rural proletarians. They work on plantations and landlords land for wages and own nothing. How is that petit-bourgeoisie? The reason they are rural based is because at least 70% of the Indian population lives in the countryside

REDdog
30th April 2007, 11:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:36 pm


Socialism in one country screwed world revolutions.CPI(M)&#39;s socialism in one state is currently screwing the Indian Revolution.
I dont thin it is good comparison. Are you trying to tell that, West Bengal is a socialist state? I dont think they are anywhere close to socialism and the future looks hopeless.

You are definitely right about criticizing the Naxals. I dont think they have managed to do anything of importance. Just killing some individuals are not enough, they seem to lay more stress on individuals and they are definitely going to be a problem in future.

Comrade, I dont think there is anything wrong in accepting the ignorant nature our country men. I do believe that India still is under the clutches of religious extremism and I am sure that it is going to stay here for a very ling time.

RNK
30th April 2007, 11:53
That&#39;s the problem with you Maoist "comrades", you have absolutely no comprehension of authentic marxism and embrace the revisionism that exists in China as communism.

Before you open your mouth again and make yourself look like an even bigger asshole, please learn what "Maoism" actually is, capisci? This Red Army Faction kid obviously has about as much of a clue about what Maoism is as you do -- none.



If I may sum that up, there might be &#39;oppressed&#39; classes, but none are compatible in creating socialism except the truly revolutionary class; the urban proletariat.

And how long will that take? 100 years? 200 years? I do not agree with your &#39;claim&#39; that the Naxalites are petty-bourgeois. They are peasants, mainly, either at the hand of a land-owner or scratching their own existence. To say they are unrevolutionary is, in my opinion, really narrowing yourself down to the point that I must wonder if you think anyone in the world is "revolutionary". Unfortunately, we can not wait around for every corner of the planet to become urbanized proletariat. The peasants are proto-proletartians; they may not "fit the bill" today, but tomorrow, when all of their land is under state or corporate control, they will.

In any case, the Naxalites and CPI(Maoist), like the CCP, draw much of their &#39;stock&#39; from radical urban proletarians and students and routinely undertake urban actions such as factory and university occupations -- as well as instigate uprisings in the peasantry. So please don&#39;t be so quick to swallow that beauraucratic, revisionist, reformist bullshit coming from the mouths of the "state-sponsored Communists" of the CPIM.

And what bombing in February? I&#39;ve scoured the internet, including anti-Naxal sites and blogs and I haven&#39;t seen a single mention of any bombing in February. There was one in March where over 50 police and special security were killed...

Rawthentic
30th April 2007, 15:17
And how am I being sectarian
Like this, and I was talking about your shit against g.ram, not Dali.

...
It seems like you just prefer to slander real revolutions because your movement has faied to be the ideology of any of them

I just don&#39;t get it. Why are trotskyist organizations so damn consistant and unrelenting at trying to slander other communist groups.

Vargha Poralli
30th April 2007, 15:56
Originally posted by RedDali+April 30, 2007 12:13 am--> (RedDali &#064; April 30, 2007 12:13 am)
Really sorry to tell this but your analysis is totally bullshit. Naxalite support base is not the land owing peasant base which is mostly associated with Maosits but mostly of the most backward sections of the whole society who own nothing except their lives.

Are you sure about that? I am guessing that by asserting that the class composition of the Naxalites are the &#39;backward sections of the whole society who own nothing except their lives&#39;, you are suggesting that they come from the urban proletariat? This is simply not true. I will repeat myself: the Naxalites are agircultural laborers who usher from tribal areas that have a tight-nit relationship with their land; they are petit-bourgeois, in that they are struggling for the social preservation of their class. They are opposed to the landowners - with their large-landed properties that are connected with the intermediary of the banks that foreign capital holds a grasp over, but most of all, they are even more bitterly opposed to the collapse of the past that is associated with their historical redundancy. Sure, I will concede, they might be &#39;oppressed&#39;, but can we really make the argument that they are able to create socialism with their class interests? I would refer to a subject brought up within an unrelated thread on the Luddite movement from within England:

On Luddism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65784&st=25)

If I may sum that up, there might be &#39;oppressed&#39; classes, but none are compatible in creating socialism except the truly revolutionary class; the urban proletariat.[/b]
Well did I say anywhere they will be able to create Socisliam ? or the future of India is in their hands. I have been called a sectarian by LeftyHenry for criticising them and their actions numerous times in this very own board and in his Blog.So that topic about Luddism is meaningless in this context.

But my criticism is very much different from yours. You criticism is not based on their actions but on their very existence. Civil Rights movement did not manage to bring socialism in US so should the Communists should not have supported them ? The struggle of Australian Aborigines is not going to bring up socialism so should the socialists should stop supporting them to fight for their rights ? Or even the fight against Homophobia,Misogyny etc will not bring Socialism so we should stop fighting for it ? Or the fuck striking for a pay hike is not going to bring about Communism so we should stop striking ?

It is really easy to say that we Socialism is the future and will end all miseries to all section of people and it might be true as well. That should not mean that communists should stop taking part in various struggles that may or may not be socialist in nature. Oppression is Oppression and to fight it must be the number priority for anyone who claims to be a Marxist or Communist. Sociliam will not be brought in by predicting that Capitalism would Industrialise the whole earth one day and another day workers will suddenly seize all the means of productions one day. The struggle should fought daily and even one inch progress would still be a great achievement.

And also you are wrong to think that the Indian peasants intrest is totally incompatible with Socialism/Communism.The majority of their Land is not owned by them and I have no problem fighting under the slogan the land should be owned by those who who work in it. I have already told you how agriculture is seen by farmers in India and Industrialised farming under capitalism(whose sole purpose is profit) in India cannot replace them as an effective method to feed billions of Indian people. And even Industrial farming does not bring food from the sky they still need people to work.


REDdog

I dont thin it is good comparison. Are you trying to tell that, West Bengal is a socialist state? I dont think they are anywhere close to socialism and the future looks hopeless.

That is actually a good comparison comrade. Do you think USSR was a socialist country . Socialism in One country is just a slogan and had nothing to do with buliding socialism in USSR. But certainly that slogan did screw workers struggle in other countries under Stalinist Comintern. Just like that the top brass of CPI(M) screwing their own parties in other states to maintain their power in WB and Kerala.



Comrade, I dont think there is anything wrong in accepting the ignorant nature our country men. I do believe that India still is under the clutches of religious extremism and I am sure that it is going to stay here for a very ling time.

I don&#39;t disagree with this or agree with this. India is currently calm at the surface but boiling at the bottom. The task of the Communists should be channelising that anger against the true enemy the capitalists. But the pathetic state of CPI and CPI(M) means that they cannot be those guiding factors nor do the Naxalites.



In any case, the Naxalites and CPI(Maoist), like the CCP, draw much of their &#39;stock&#39; from radical urban proletarians and students and routinely undertake urban actions such as factory and university occupations -- as well as instigate uprisings in the peasantry.

I would have been a Naxalite myself if that had happened. The reality says other wise. I have exactly given how much big the Naxals have been in another thread. They are virtually non existent in alll Industrialised areas. They are capable of killing police but they can never bring about socialism in India.