Burma 02

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here is an illuminating Essay on this written by a friend of mine (links ommitted):


Anyone watching the news might think that a bunch of Burmese monks have simply decided to stage protests for democracy and freedom in front of hidden cameras all of a sudden, and - well, what do you know? - the Bush administration and New Labour have decided to champion them and Aung San Suu Kyi. Possibly, when David Miliband started crowing about Burma, you were reminded of Britain's extensive imperialist involvement in the country, as well as New Labour's long-standing support for the dictatorship, including the provision of funds and arms to help it suppress dissent. Perhaps your suspicions have been raised by the fact that protests in Thailand against the US-supported putsch have been repressed even more violently, much more rapidly, and have produced a low-intensity war in parts of the country, without the splash headlines. Maybe you raised an eyebrow when an unshaven Brian Joseph of the National Endowment for Democracy, which has rarely seen a rightist coup plot it didn't like, started appearing as an expert on Myanmar in all the news reports. And perhaps when you heard that they were spending some of the US government's millions on the opposition there, your mind reeled with all the branding possibilities. The Garuda Revolution? Perhaps this was the point of Rambo's genocide tourism.

There has been a popular movement against the ruling State Law and Order Council for years, obviously, and this is part of a real revolt. The monks are an important and esteemed segment of society because they provide education and social services, whereas the dictatorship simply exploits people. So why should it be that the United States government has, for the last few years, been applying sanctions to Burma along with its allies? Why is it championing the main democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi? Only an ostrich would imagine it has anything to do with democracy. Well, it's the same as East Timor in many ways. The West, after having backed a genocidal regime for years, has terrorised the opposition into accepting a neoliberal programme. Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy has promised that, upon taking power, it will implement structural adjustments opening up huge parts of the economy to international investors. There is more than a parallel there: Suharto was one of the Burmese junta's closest allies before an uprising threw him off, and a polyarchical neoliberal regime in both states will restore the symmetry to some extent. So, it's another phase in the transition from anti-socialist dictatorships used by Washington to slightly less coercive regimes in which the opposition has basically been neutered. The experiment launched in Chile in 1973 was really that successful. Britain, which has been doing fine out of the old regime, now hopes to do even better out of the new one. And at the same time, it has a chance of re-moralizing its disgraced foreign policy. New opportunities for intensified capital accumulation will open up, and in all probability the health and nutrition indices - already so miserably poor that they contribute to genocidal levels of death in some segments of the population - will get worse. Of course, while the NLD are the natural beneficiaries of any successful rebellion, there is no guarantee that people will simply accept the neoliberal programme. It depends how much the overthrow of the SLORC is a result of mass mobilisation, and how much of it comes about as a result of the elite compromise and handovers that were prevalent in Eastern Europe after 1989, and in recent colour-coded revolutions. A recently victorious rebellious mass can be surprisingly disobedient.

More details here:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/09/coo...mar-revolt.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/09/coopting-myanmar-revolt.html)

[Dr Mindbender]

I was going to start a thread on Burma till I saw this. Does anyone feel that what is happening in Burma right now is an exciting time for the left, as revolutionary sentiment there is obviously very high? The only thing which bothers me is the whiff of theocracy, I saw on the news the way the protesters were defending the buddhist monks as though they were the 'vanguard' of the demo. Since the Burmese government has promised violence things are likely to get very messy, possibly with angry repercussions against the state. What does everyone else think?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blogger updates here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/burma-...0486364326.html (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/burma-bloggers/2007/09/26/1190486364326.html)

Ulster Socialist, as the above essay argues, these monks are revered in Burma, and are acting like reformists right now.

How this will turn out will depend on what other forces emerge from below, and how far they are prepared to push their demands.

[RedStarOverChina]

There's no "revolutionary sentiment" in Burma...They just felt ready for a new ruler, i.e., the United States.

I think BBC described it as the power struggle between the two most powerful institutions in Burma: the state and the priesthood.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:47 pm
I think BBC described it as the power struggle between the two most powerful institutions in Burma: the state and the priesthood.
If this is true then I'm very sad. No wonder Bush is calling it a good thing, because either way the bourgeoisie stays in power............

Of course I hope it all changes. I wish we had people from Burma here to update us.

On a side note...............fuck religion....................can I get an amen!!!!!!! :D

[Comrade_Scott]

well what we all expected has happend the army has enough of the thorn and is cracking down. a person who e-mailed the bbc said it the best that these protesters are the bravest people ever marching protesting knowing that death awaits them. fuck i wish i were there to prtest with them, all the best to the burmese people keep up the fight

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Scott, thank you for showing the right attitude!

Some here would have a go at the monks and nunns even as they face the police guns, perhaps joining in attacking them!

[Vanguard1917]

Here's a very good article from yesterday on the events: Burma needs democratic revolution, not intervention (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3889/).

While everyone seems to be calling for international intervention, our primary responsibility as leftists in the West is to oppose our governments' attempts to interfere in Burma (as well as elsewhere in the non-Western world).

Also, we shouldn't forget that while Western elites may respond favourably to peaceful protests by Buddhist monks, historical experience shows us that they respond very differently when faced with the prospect of genuine, militant movements for change in the developing world. As the article states:

'Many in the West love the images of peace-loving monks making polite demands for reform and appealing for the world to save Burma. That is their idea of a nice, civilised ‘revolution’. The enthusiasm of Bush or Miliband for these protests stands in stark contrast to the West’s far cooler attitude towards the more militant protests for democracy and the overthrow of the monarchy in Nepal over the past couple of years (see Now that’s what I call democratisation (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/48/), by Brendan O’Neill). The Western authorities prefer their Asian rebels to be meek and mild and know their place.

'In the same speech where he spoke about bringing democracy to Burma, the UK foreign secretary talked about the need to ‘move on’ from Iraq-style militarism and learn the lesson that other types of international intervention can be more effective for Britain and the West. By the same token, the critics of Western governments should try to learn the lesson that diplomatic, political, and economic intervention in the affairs of a country such as Burma can be just as damaging to the interests of those on the receiving end.'

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 08:29 pm
Comrade Scott, thank you for showing the right attitude!

Some here would have a go at the monks and nunns even as they face the police guns, perhaps joining in attacking them!
Isn't it nice never having to argue for what you stand for?


Buddhist monks were in cahoots with the junta in persecuting Christians and Muslims for all these years, you never hear so much as a peep from them about Muslim slaves that slaved their lives away building Buddhist temples.

Now the government increases the price of fuel, and they get all pumped up about "democracy".

Fuck 'em.

[Comrade_Scott]

im not prasing the monks couldnt care ess about the monks i agree fuck em im talking about the people may they get what they strive for freedom from this hell. as to matters concerning the monks- to quote religion you reap what you sow(ironic aint it :lol: )

[Matty_UK]

Is this an effect of the recent economic crisis?

Is the increase in fuel prices to do with the British and French fuel companies trying to recover from it?

I think it's fairly likely, and we could be seeing a lot more situations like this in the next few years.

[bootleg42]

http://www.marxist.com/tragedy-myanmar-birma.htm


The tragedy of Myanmar Print E-mail
By Fred Weston
Thursday, 27 September 2007

The latest news from Myanmar (previously known as Burma) is that soldiers have fired on protesting crowds with tear gas. Yesterday other reports indicated that at least one demonstrator had been killed and others seriously injured. Several monasteries have been raided by security forces as they are seen by the regime as the focal points of the present unrest.

The regime is attempting to hold back the masses with brute force. Back in 1988, according to all available reports some 3,000 people were killed in the previous mass protests. Therefore no one can have any doubts as to the brutality of this regime and the depths to which it can sink as it attempts to hold back the tide of protest.

The question that remains to be seen is whether the present balance of forces allows for such a clampdown to be repeated on the same scale this time. Many things have changed since 1988. In the past the regime had based itself on the model of Chinese Stalinism, but the Soviet Union has gone and China has taken the road of capitalism, but even more importantly things have moved on inside Burma itself, with worsening economic and social conditions.

Hypocrisy of imperialism

After the mass protests and the threat of a brutal clampdown on the part of the regime, George W Bush and Gordon Brown, as could be expected, have been beating the drum of "democracy" and "human rights". President Bush announced earlier this week that new US sanctions would be imposed on Myanmar, and he attacked the military regime for imposing "a 19-year reign of fear" on the people, denying them any basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

In his recent speech to the UN General Assembly in New York he said that, "Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma." The European Union has also added its voice to the protest, as did British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who declared that, "The whole world is now watching Burma and its illegitimate and repressive regime should know that the whole world is going to hold it to account. The age of impunity in neglecting and overriding human rights is over." The western media have also been producing article after article about the lack of democracy in Burma.

Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, has also called for the UN Security Council to meet to discuss the crisis, no doubt with the proposal that the UN step in to solve the crisis. He has urged the UN to send an envoy to Myanmar.

This appeal to the UN is an attempt to confuse matters and to present world "public opinion" with the idea that the UN is an independent arbiter that can resolve such conflicts. We have repeated it many times over: the UN cannot play an independent role. It cannot guarantee peace or solve major conflicts. That is because the UN can only express the interests of the major powers. If these can reach agreement over an issue then the UN can be used as a cover to display "impartiality". Where the imperialist powers cannot agree then the UN is powerless, as was clearly the case in the Iraq war, and it is the strongest power that decides. In the case of Myanmar, if the UN did get a say in affairs there, it would be simply to put a rubber stamp on decisions taken by the major powers.

Brutal regime

No one can have any doubts about the brutal nature of the Myanmar regime. It is indeed one of the most brutal and corrupt in the world and the masses have every reason to protest. Their living conditions have fallen dramatically from what was already a very low level. But Bush and Brown seem to have no ability to feel shame or embarrassment at making their statements expressing their indignation. While they have unleashed the most awful conditions on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, while they continue to have very good relations with brutal regimes like that in Saudi Arabia, after decades of supporting military coup after military coup, they suddenly discover a love for democracy in Myanmar.

Genuine socialists defend the right of the Myanmar masses to decide their own destiny, to remove this oppressive regime and replace it with a government that defends their real interests. But they are not going to get that from the USA or Britain, or from the EU or any other imperialist power. The present "opposition" will also not grant the people their wishes. They are merely exploiting the genuine discontent of the masses to ride on their backs to power. They are not representatives of the masses.

What we have is a struggle for spheres of influence, particularly between the USA and China. India also has an important stake and has been in competition with China to get control of the raw materials that Myanmar is rich in. As in the Ukraine, in Georgia and many other similar situations, the USA has been manoeuvring to get its puppets installed in power. And Myanmar is no different. The US want to squeeze China out and impose a "democratic" regime that will be more compliant to the demands of imperialism. Any such "democratic" regime would apply the policies of the World Bank and the IMF, i.e. the policies dictated by imperialism, which would include widespread privatisation, cuts in social spending and a general attack on the already miserable standard of living of the masses. One only has to look at what has happened in the Ukraine after the so-called "Orange revolution" to understand this.

That is why we must distinguish between the genuine aspirations of the people and the aims and objectives of the Western-backed "Opposition." In order to do this we need to unravel what has been developing in Myanmar over the past decades.
Historical background

The present regime has its roots in the events that took place in 1962 when Ne Win carried out a coup and modelling himself on Maoist China nationalised all land, industry and commerce, setting up a one-party totalitarian regime. He even adopted the title of "Chairman". Capitalism was eliminated and a planned economy was set up. The fact that this was possible was a reflection of the inability of the then Burmese bourgeoisie to develop the country's economy. It also reflects on the role of British imperialism in the past, when they held Burma as a colony. They took 62 years to conquer the whole of the country, between 1824 and 1886, and then held it until 1948. Throughout that period they failed to develop the country in any significant manner.

Even after formal independence, it remained totally dominated by imperialism. In those conditions Ted Grant back in 1964 analysed the developments in Burma and explained the process:

"It is the incapacity of the bourgeois, semi-bourgeois, upper middle class, landlords and petit-bourgeois to solve these tasks, that poses the problem of the permanent revolution in a distorted way. Had there been in existence strong Marxist parties and tendencies in the colonial areas of the world, the problem of power would have been posed somewhat differently. It would have been posed with an internationalist perspective. Even more than in the industrially developed countries of the West, socialism in one country, or, one might add, in a series of backward countries, is an impossible chimera. Nevertheless, the tasks of development in these countries are imperiously posed. With the world balance of forces, with the delay of the revolution in the West, with the lack of Marxist parties in these countries and with the social classes in these countries themselves, new and peculiar phenomena are inevitable.

"For example, with a mighty Chinese revolution on its borders, developments in Burma have taken a peculiar form. Since the end of the war Burmese society has been disorganised. The national minorities have waged a constant struggle for self-determination and national autonomy in their own states (Kachins, Shans etc) and at the same time, different factions of the Stalinist party have waged a terrific guerrilla war. One government has succeeded another, but each has been incapable of putting its stamp on society. Like the Chinese bourgeoisie before it, it has been incapable of unifying society, giving it social cohesion and satisfying the land hunger of the peasants, or breaking the economic power of imperialism. It is a striking symptom of the new developments in these backward countries that all the factions in Burma claim to be 'socialist'. Imperialism dominated the economy, by its ownership, largely, of whatever industry existed and of the main economic forces such as teak plantations, oil and transport.

"With the example of China on the border, it became more and more apparent to the upper layers of the petit-bourgeois that on the road of bourgeois society there was no way forward for Burma. As in China, in the decades before the revolution, the bourgeois was incapable of bringing the guerrilla war to an end and ensuring the development of a stable society and the inauguration of industrialisation and the creation of a modern state.

"Each succeeding government made only the feeblest attempts to try and develop the economy. The weakness of imperialism, the balance of forces nationally and internationally, led to a situation where the officer caste posed the problem before itself of finding some stability within society. In all these countries, the development of the bourgeois revolution, a bourgeois democratic state, and a development towards a modern bourgeois democracy, given the existing relationship of class and national forces and with the pressure of the world economy, for any lengthy period is impossible.

"Consequently, some form of Bonapartism, some form of military-police state, was inevitable in Burma. The officer caste saw itself in the role of the only strata which could 'save' society from disintegration and collapse, as the feeble bourgeoisie obviously offered no solution. Consequently, the officer caste which had participated as one of the 'socialist' factions, decided that the only way forward was on the model of 'socialist' China, but called a 'Burmese model' of 'socialism'. They have moved rapidly on familiar lines - a one-party totalitarian state, and the nationalisation of foreign-owned interests, including oil, teak, transport etc. They have begun the expropriation of the indigenous bourgeoisie. They even threatened the nationalisation of the small shops. They based themselves on the peasants and the working class. But they do not have a model of scientific socialism, on the contrary, their programme is one of 'Burmese-Buddhist socialism'." (from The Colonial Revolution and the Sino-Soviet Dispute, By Ted Grant, August 1964)

Burma was never "socialist" as the bourgeois media portrayed it; it was a terrible caricature of socialism, where the means of production had been expropriated but power was not in the hands of the workers and peasants. Power was in the hands of a bureaucratic military elite.

It should also be added that the regime that came to power had a particularly distorted view of how the economy should be developed. They did not just nationalise the commanding heights of the economy but took over every small plot of land, every little shop. The effects of these measures far from helping to develop the economy, actually contributed to stifle development. The regime went as far as closing dance halls, abolishing tourism and expelling foreigners. It became one of the most autarchic regimes we have ever seen, in many ways similar to the North Korean regime.

Although there was some development of the economy, the bureaucratic restraints eventually choked the economy, particularly in agriculture. Burma had been the world's largest exporter of rice, but by the mid-1970s the country could barely produce enough food to feed its own population. Per capita income also fell from $670 in 1960 to $200 in 1989. The military bureaucratic caste very quickly became an absolute fetter on the development of the productive forces. What was potentially a very rich country was in fact one of the poorest countries in the world.

The 1980s saw the situation deteriorate further. In 1987 the regime announced that large banknotes were no longer valid currency. This destroyed the savings of ordinary people and led directly to the 1988 uprising that was later crushed in blood. In the same year the old dictator, Ne Win, retired and a group of generals seized power, elbowing out the previous faction that had control of the state. It was this new regime that changed the name of the country to Myanmar in 1989, abandoning the previous title of "Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma", and called a free election in 1990 which saw Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) win a landslide victory, gaining the support of 80% of the population.

The indications are that, in line with what was happening in China, the army chiefs were under pressure to open up the regime and the economy, but they could not stomach the idea of losing their control over the economy, which their privileges were based on. They were not against the idea of so-called "liberalisation", i.e. privatisation and breaking down the old state-owned planned economy, but they wanted to make sure they kept control by becoming themselves the direct owners of the means of production. In this sense their model continued to be that of China, a country where the old state apparatus remained intact but the economic base of the country was shifting towards capitalism.

Thus, while refusing to recognise the results of the 1990 elections, they took steps in the early 1990s to open up the economy and allow a certain development of the market, but for the imperialists they did not go far enough. The regime stopped half way! That is the real concern of imperialism, not the lack of "democracy". After all, they do very good business with China, where a one-party totalitarian regime is still in power. The reason they call for "democracy" is that they see a bourgeois democratic regime as being more pliable and more easily pressurised to abide by their economic policies.

Underdeveloped economy

The fact remains that the economy of Myanamar is still very underdeveloped. And after the clampdown in 1988, followed by the refusal of the military to accept the results of the 1990 elections, most foreign aid and investment dried up. In 2003 foreign economic pressure was intensified after the regime attacked a convoy of Aung San Suu Kyi. The US imposed new sanctions, further tightening the economic squeeze.

Economic statistics on Myanmar are not easy to come by. Since 1997, the generals have not even published a formal budget, and the figures they do produce cannot be trusted. In the same period figures on health, education, etc., have been scarce. But according to some estimates, "the junta is thought to spend more than 40% of its budget on defence and arms procurement", but it spends less than 1% of GDP on health and education combined.

Those statistics that are available reveal the terrible plight of the people of Myanamar and also the very low level of development of the economy. Out of a population close to 50 million, there is a labour force of around 29 million, but 70% of this is employed in agriculture. Agriculture in fact accounts for 50% of GDP while industry is only 15% and unemployment is estimated to be above 10%. Annual GDP per capita in 2006 stood at $1,800.

However, this hides the real distribution of wealth. The poorest 10% of the population consumes only 2.8% of national wealth, while the richest 10% consumes 32.4% (1998 figures). This is being made worse by spiralling inflation which stands at well over 20%. That explains why 25% of the population lives below the poverty line. There is a very high risk of disease, in particular of diarrhoea, hepatitis, typhoid fever, dengue fever and malaria. HIV is also widespread. Life expectancy until a few years ago was about 62 but now it is calculated it may be falling very rapidly and some estimates say it may fall to well below 50. This is an indication of the general decline in infrastructure that has taken place over recent years.

In this general economic and social decay the national question has been further exacerbated. The majority of the population is Burman (around 68%), but the rest of the population is made up of ethnic minorities, Shans, Karens, Rakhines, Chinese, Indian, Mons and some smaller groups. There are conflicts, mainly on the eastern borders and government offensives have led to large numbers of refugees and displaced persons, mainly Karen, Karenni, Shan, Tavoyan, and Mon.

The degree of collapse of the economy and general infrastructure can be seen in the fact that trafficking in persons has become a major export of the country, with men, women, and children smuggled out to East and Southeast Asia for sexual exploitation, domestic service, and forced commercial labour. Many of Myanmar's migrants end up in forced or bonded labour and many of the women end up in forced prostitution. Although the country is rich in raw materials, it has become the world's second largest producer of opium. What an utter condemnation of these rotten army officers who are busy accumulating personal wealth while millions suffer in abject poverty.
Mass movement unleashed

It is in this already desperate situation that the regime announced stringent economic measures in August, when they suddenly withdrew fuel subsidies. On August 15, without warning, the government announced that fuel prices were to rise by 500 per cent.

The price of gas went up five-fold. The price of petrol and diesel doubled. Bus fares also doubled. The regime was taking desperate measures to reduce the state deficit. All this came like a sudden blow to an already impoverished population. All it needed was a spark and the generals provided it with their draconian economic measures.

This set in motion the movement that has led to the present situation. On August 19 around 400 "pro-democracy activists" organised a march in Rangoon against the price increases. The regime reacted as it has always done by arresting 150 of the demonstrators. By early September the movement, with a huge participation of Buddhist monks was growing stronger by the day.

The young Buddhist monks filled a vacuum by offering a focal point to the mass movement, but even they have no political expression of their own. Thus on September 22 they marched to the house of opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, where she has been kept under house arrest for years. Then on September 24, 100,000 people came out onto the streets of Rangoon.

Divisions within the regime

As we write, reports keep coming in of further measures of repression with mass arrests and shootings taking place. There are also, however, indications that the regime is divided on how to proceed from here. They could opt for the 1988 scenario, but even for them that would not solve anything in the long-term. In fact an attempt to go down that road could unleash an even bigger movement that could bring the regime crumbling down leaving a huge power vacuum. That would be seen as an extremely dangerous position both by the military and the bourgeois opposition.

That explains why some of the officer caste is more inclined to open a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi. She has the moral authority to rein in the masses. But for her to do that, she would have to show that some gains have been made, and that would mean the regime opening up towards some kind of transition to "democracy". They would also have to combine this with some economic measures to alleviate somewhat the pressure on the masses.

Here the Chinese can play an important role. They have made big investment in Burma and do not want to see these put at risk. According to The Financial Times (September 25):

"Privately, in talks with the US, and publicly in recent weeks, although less explicitly, China has urged Burma to engage the now-detained Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, directly in recognition of her democratic mandate."

"In September, Tang Jiaxuan, a former foreign minister who has been used as an envoy by Beijing, told Burmese leaders that "China wholeheartedly hopes that will push forward a democracy process that is appropriate for the country".

"Xinhua, the official news agency, added that China, ‘as a friendly neighbour, sincerely hopes [Burma] will restore internal stability as soon as possible, properly handle issues and actively promote national reconciliation'.

"China fears that any violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators by the junta will reflect badly on Beijing itself and its willingness to support dictatorial regimes.

"China has invested heavily in Burmese gas fields, often in competition with India. It is also building a port at Kyauk Phyu, in Burma, which will be connected by a 1,950km highway with Kunming, capital of China's Yunnan province."

The Chinese regime is an important factor in the situation as the above quote indicates. The fact that around 35% of Burma's imports come from China underlines the influence that China can have on the regime.

Whether this will be enough to twist the arm of the generals we will see very soon. One thing is clear: this regime's days are numbered. Sooner or later it will fall. The tragedy of the situation is that the working masses have no real alternative to turn to. There is no independent voice of the workers. Also the failures of the old Stalinist regime are being used by the media to discredit the very idea of socialism. This leaves a huge vacuum that must be filled by someone.
The nature of the opposition

As we have seen the lead came initially from the young Buddhist monks, around which a mass movement has developed, but they too do not have their own political voice. Thus they have turned to Aung San Suu Kyi and the National league for Democracy. This woman, thanks to her years under house arrest has built up the moral authority to emerge as "leader" of the mass movement.

What we have to underline is the fact that she and her party were not the promoters of this movement. The movement is a reaction to the terrible conditions the masses are living under. However, although she has not promoted the movement, she will most likely be the main beneficiary of that movement.

Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of one of Burma's "independence heroes" and has been built up as "the living symbol of Burmese aspirations for a better life", as The Financial Times has described her. However, some historical "facts" can help shed some light on the background of this woman. Her father actually collaborated with the Japanese against the British during the Second World War. In this he had at his side Ne Win, the man who was to lead the 1962 coup. When the Japanese were in retreat these two "heroes" switched sides and joined the British. So much for the "anti-imperialism" of these two gentlemen. Many years later we see the daughter of Aung San, Suu Kyi, being used as an instrument of imperialist policy, this time of US imperialism.

The cynicism of imperialism and of their paid strategists can be seen in the following analysis that recently appeared in The Financial Times:

"Kyaw Yin Hlaing, a politics professor at City University of Hong Kong, says that some concessions - including immediate measures to alleviate public hardship in day-to-day living - could reduce the momentum of the demonstrations. ‘People are asking for changes,' he said. ‘The easiest way for things to calm down is to do something that will make them feel that there are some changes and more changes will come in the future.'

"Limited economic measures without the promise of more fundamental political change, however, may not be sufficient to end the protests, given the depth of popular anger. And ‘to obtain a peaceful negotiated settlement that enables political progress to be achieved requires a strong leader on both sides, who is ready for compromise and can control their constituents', says a Bangkok-based western diplomat and long-time Burma watcher." (Financial Times, September 25)

It is all about what needs to "seem" to be done and about who controls "their constituents". It is not about real change, about genuine alleviation of the problems of the masses. There is no surprise in this. The military elite wants to hold on to power for fear of losing their privileges. They want a capitalism all of their own, that allows them to remain as the elite of society. [b]The opposition want a form of capitalism more in line with the interests of imperialism. On this basis both sides are in opposition to the real interests of the toiling masses.

Socialist perspective

Back in 1988 the mass movement could have toppled the regime had it had a correct leadership with a genuinely revolutionary and socialist perspective. The solution was not in sowing illusions in the "market" but in wresting power from the military and replacing it with genuine workers' and peasants' power. This would involve not privatisation, but state-owned planned economy under the democratic control of the workers and peasants through democratically elected bodies.

Because no such leadership existed, since then Aung San Suu Kyi and her party have built up their authority and are now able to fill the vacuum. This means the masses in Myanmar will pay a heavy price. It is their movement that will eventually bring down the rotten military caste that is presently in power. On the back of this movement the bourgeois opposition will come to power. They will then proceed to accelerate the process of privatisations and opening up to the world market. The resources of the country have already been plundered by foreign powers, in particular China. This plundering will multiply a thousandfold and the Myanmar masses will be no better off.

At a certain stage the masses will see through the empty rhetoric of the bourgeois opposition. Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy will lose their gloss. In those conditions a genuine socialist alternative could gain the ear of the masses. The task is to build such an alternative.

This task can be facilitated by events in the surrounding countries, particularly in India and China, where there is a powerful working class. Because of the extreme underdevelopment of Myanmar the solution to the present crisis cannot be found solely within its borders. Even a healthy socialist regime, with genuine workers' democracy would come under immense international pressure. If the initial workers' democracy that existed in the Soviet Union was snuffed out by the isolation of the revolution, Myanmar cannot hope to do better.

The solution to the present crisis in Myanmar lies in the struggle for a Socialist Federation of Asia, within which the workers and peasants of Myanmar would find their role. Marxists are duty bound to tell the masses the truth. We do not fall into the trap of having illusions in the present opposition in the country. We recognise the immense revolutionary will of the masses. We support the masses in their aspirations, but we also tell them that only by counting on their own forces, by taking power themselves and linking up with the workers throughout the region can they find any long-lasting solution.

Basically these are just bourgeoisie forces fighting each other with the working class and the peasants getting nothing in the end. Sad.........really sad.

Also I read that most of the "U.S. left" (not the revolutionary left, but the pathetic U.S. left) see this as democracy movements. Hopefully the workers will rise up.

And I say this a million times.................fuck religion.......can I get an amen!!!!!!

[bootleg42]

OH GOD. Sickening. The bourgeoisie reactionary "Hollywood left" (or at least that's what the conservatives always call them) are calling for intervention. Sickening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwgwkMc__Es...rburma%2Eorg%2F (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwgwkMc__Es&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Euscampaignforburma%2Eorg%2 F)

Jim Carry *****ing about this like the herb he is ^^^^^^

http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/assk/otherquotes.html

A letter by those pathetic hollywood morons asking for intervention. ^^^

http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/

^^^ And this site (which a TON of forums in the U.S. (both democrat and republican) have suddenly posted up to "help") HAS A STENCH OF IMPERIALISM ALL OVER IT.

We on the revolutionary left must spread our message out of the truth of what's really going on here all over the internet. If this is an information war, the reactionaries are winning it with the imperialist right benefiting in the end!!!!!

Makes me puke.

[Jazzratt]

Are you surprised? Any time anything goes badly in another country the imperialists scream that an intervention is required, it's a load of paternalistic bollocks and the results of actually going along with such a policty would only give these results:
Resentment from countries where "intervension" (invasion) has taken place, usually manifesting as a fuck off great civil war.
Vast losses of resources and lives on both sides.
Usually a situation way more fucked up than the previous one.

And don't get me started on the cries for intervention against those "eeeeeeeeeeeeeebilll" leftists that dare rise up.

[Guerrilla22]

While the situation in Myanamar, Burma, whatever you wanna call it is clearly awful, it is just a tad bit hypocritical for Bush to go up in front of the uN and call out myanmar for human rights abuses.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 06:46 pm
While the situation in Myanamar, Burma, whatever you wanna call it is clearly awful, it is just a tad bit hypocritical for Bush to go up in front of the uN and call out myanmar for human rights abuses.
especially when 30 seconds later he *****es about Israel getting criticized for theirs. <_<

[Comrade_Scott]

let bush talk he has so little credabilaty left if any at all that if he said the un hq was on fire people would go in regardles. poor stupid bastard, reminds me of the boy who cried wolf (the president who called human rights abuse)

[Comrade Rage]

Good One. :)

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:18 pm
Are you surprised? Any time anything goes badly in another country the imperialists scream that an intervention is required, it&#39;s a load of paternalistic bollocks and the results of actually going along with such a policty would only give these results:


Resentment from countries where "intervension" (invasion) has taken place, usually manifesting as a fuck off great civil war.


Vast losses of resources and lives on both sides.


Usually a situation way more fucked up than the previous one.



And don&#39;t get me started on the cries for intervention against those "eeeeeeeeeeeeeebilll" leftists that dare rise up.
Tell me about it, the damn US liberals are nothing but a bunch of imperialist hypocrites.

While the situation in Myanamar, Burma, whatever you wanna call it is clearly awful, it is just a tad bit hypocritical for Bush to go up in front of the uN and call out myanmar for human rights abuses.
You see it&#39;s a "do as I say not as I do" kinda thing. <_<

By the way are there any leftist organizations in Burma?

[Wanted Man]

Good thread. The liberals have already decided to call it "The Saffron Revolution" (though the monks&#39; robes are crimson). You know, in memory of all those colour revolutions that ended so well&#33; Popular movements against dictatorships can get a lot of western liberal support, just so long as their (mis)leaders bend over and take their pants off and take the neo-liberal rectal suppository without crying. Hell, they&#39;ll even give it a nice colour revolution name.

Edit: by the way, what&#39;s with the media&#39;s insistence on naming the country "Burma"? Is it because the dictatorship is responsible for the name change to Myanmar?

[Sky]

The situation in Myanmar can best be described as a failed coup whose aims are to restore colonial rule in the country. In a hypocritical manner, the ruling clique in Washington has announced that it will impose sanctions on Myanmar because of the failure of this CIA-backed coup. When Washington takes measures that are so conspicuously motivated by politics, one has to be suspicious of the nature of the demonstrations in Burma. It is no secret that the ruling circles in Washington have systematically tried to overthrow independent-minded Governments through covert means through the use of surrogates (Mobutu, Pinochet, etc). It&#39;s striking that the BBC and other imperialist media provide immense coverage to the events in Burma but more or less ignore the progressive uprising in France last year. We should recall that in Mexico at one stage during the protest movement against electoral fraud last year, there were three million people on the streets of Mexico City. The movement had a mass participation that lasted for months. But what kind of media coverage did that movement get? The official media did not offer us scenes of the rallies in Mexico City. On the contrary, they played the whole movement down. Organs such as The Economist and Financial Times, which are now talking of "revolution"; in Burma, denied such a movement was taking place in Mexico.

Working people worldwide stand in solidarity with the people’s Government of Myanmar in its struggle against imperialist intrigues and their reactionary Buddhist handmaidens. The people’s Government behaved properly in responding to unprovoked provocations from these disgraceful traitors that seek to sell their country out to western monopolies. As the rather pathetic scale of this gathering demonstrates, the Burmese people overwhelmingly oppose the subversive conduct of these saboteurs. From what I understand, these protestors are behaving unlawfully. They did not obtain the permission necessary to engage in such a demonstration.

That these demonstrations are led by a handful of Buddhist monks exposes its reactionary nature. The social role of Buddhism is determined by the basic principles of its dogmatics. Whatever forms it may have taken in its development, its central principle is the religious idea of the need for deliverance from the way of of profane “earthly” existence”. Every bond, including social bonds, is viewed by Buddhism as evil. Its detachment from all surroundings and its individualism also determine its profound asocial character. This explains the withdrawal of Buddhists from the struggle for social and political reforms and from the class war.

Throughout the decades, the Burmese People&#39;s Government has been a progressive force. Between 1963-66, in the interests of the working people, the Revolutionary Council nationalized the oil industry, manufacturing, construction, mining, banks, domestic trade, foreign trade, energy, and communications. A steeply scaled income tax was introduced on western monopolistic capital from Burma, the undermining of the positions of the Hindu and Chinese bourgeoisie in Burma, and strong restrictions on the Burmese national bourgeoisie. Between 1962-65, important laws against landlords and usury were adopted; they protected the peasants’ right to land and property and to the renting of land. In 1966-67, under the leadership of the Burma Socialist Program Party, attempts were made to form popular workers’ councils and popular peasants’ councils.

[ComradeR]

Sky the military junta known as the State Peace and Development Council in Myanmar/Burma is not a peoples government, it was established after the 1988 coup which overthrew the previous military dictatorship that was lead by General Ne Win and his "Burmese Way to Socialism" (which was established after the 1962 coup). The BWtS was hardly Socialist, it included military rule, repression of minorities, severe isolationism, state religion, ethnic cleansing etc. It was in fact far closer to fascism then communism.
What we are seeing happening right now is a struggle between two imperial powers, China and the junta it backs, and the US who is trying to covertly overthrow the junta thereby removing Chinese imperial control and install it&#39;s own puppet government in order to gain control of the country itself. Regardless of the outcome it will be the people who loss.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades may be interested in an interview published in Socialist Worker a few years back:


Article from Socialist Worker 1763, 25 August 2001

Christina Fink was an anthropology student who went to study on the Thailand-Burma border. There she became involved in the struggle of ordinary people against military rule in Burma. She has now published Living Silence: Burma Under Military Rule. Here she speaks to Sam Ashman.

What are the origins of the military regime in Burma?

Burma was under British colonial rule until 1948. It was really an appendage of the empire in India.

During the Second World War Japan invaded Burma and Britain beat a retreat to India.

Many Burmans joined resistance to Japan alongside Britain, hoping for post-war freedom.

The independence movement in Burma was led by General Aung San. He was the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the contemporary democracy movement. He was assassinated in 1947 by a rival politician – along with most of his cabinet.

There is a strong suspicion of British involvement in the assassination, but it has never been proved.

Despite the assassination there was parliamentary democracy in Burma during the 1950s.

There were two kinds of resistance. There was the Communist Party, and there were ethnic minorities who wanted equal rights. Both engaged in armed struggle.

Demands by ethnic minorities for a federal system of government continue to this day.

In 1962 General Ne Win, the head of the army, used the excuse of ethnic conflict to take control from the civilian government and military rule began. Ne Win nationalised businesses, eliminated political parties and took over all private media.

In July 1962 around 100 students were gunned down by the army. The student union building of Rangoon University, the centre of student activism since colonial days, was blown up. Ne Win remained dictator until 1988.

How did the democracy movement begin?

Fighting continued in the ethnic minority states, and students and intellectuals developed underground networks.

In 1987 changes in currency regulations wiped out the value of people&#39;s savings. People expected protests, but nothing happened. Then in May 1988 a university student got into a brawl with a local youth in a tea shop. The man who started the brawl was the son of an official so he was immediately released.

The students were angry and protested outside a police station. When the army fired and killed one demonstrator, the students went crazy.

Protest spread to other universities and there was a big march in the capital. Troops surrounded the students and drove them into a lake where some of them drowned. Female students were raped.

Ne Win promised to step down and hold elections. He didn&#39;t mean it. However, in early August the BBC broadcast an interview with a student who had been raped. It included the call for a demonstration on 8 August. On 8 August people came out all over the country.

The military retreated and for six weeks there was democracy on the streets. Musicians and comedians performed everywhere. Magazines flourished. The regime fought back in September. Those who refused to get off the streets were killed. Again multi-party elections were promised.

Aung San Suu Kyi&#39;s party registered to participate in the vote.

At first she had not taken part in the demonstrations. But people demanded that she did.

In August 1988 she gave a speech and half a million people showed up to hear it. She was immediately propelled into a key leadership position. Her party was a coalition of leftist intellectuals and former military officers. A total of some 230 different parties registered to participate in the election. The regime hoped to survive because the opposition was so divided. But people were not fooled.

Aung San Suu Kyi&#39;s party got 392 seats. The regime got ten. The regime stalled. And there has been no transfer of power some 11 years later.

Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest before the election. Several other party members were also arrested and imprisoned. The party lost courage and disintegrated.

How did the regime respond?

The regime by this point wanted a market economy and to open up Burma to foreign investment.

For the first time since 1962 business grew, and big companies moved into Burma from all over south East Asia, and from the US and the UK. Burma is rich in natural resources-rubber, tin, gas, oil, jade, rubies, teak and of course cheap labour.

Oil companies – like Total, Unical and Premier – moved in and built a pipeline between Burma and Thailand.

People lost their land and got no compensation. Forced labour was used for work related to the pipeline and is still used today.

The garment industry has also grown, concentrated around Rangoon, including firms like Levi Strauss and Liz Claiborne.

The regime has courted foreign investment, but there is still not enough to sustain the army and the elite.

The regime is increasingly dependent on drug money as a result. Opium, heroin and amphetamines go to Thailand, Laos, India and China.

The dealers have arrangements with the army to get through the borders and they launder their money through state banks in Rangoon.

The drug economy is larger today than the legal economy, with huge HIV consequences.

Many start taking drugs in the ruby and jade mines. They take payment in heroin instead of cash because their conditions are so miserable. They take drugs to alleviate the pain.

Drugs are also freely available in student areas. Despite the massive military presence in these areas, drug dealers are never arrested. It is in the regime&#39;s interests for students to be addicts, not activists.

By 1995 the regime felt confident enough to release Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest.

The regime thought, "What can she do?" To its surprise, party groups and youth groups reactivated and re-formed.

She began to hold people&#39;s forums at her gate every Saturday and Sunday and 5,000 to 10,000 people would attend. This was in the face of heavy intimidation. Students and activists from 1988 met up again at these meetings, and new students were pulled into the movement.

Tape recordings of these meetings were distributed all over the country. People in the movement set up their own private libraries to read and learn from history and other struggles.

Do people in Burma follow the anti-capitalist protests taking place globally?

Most people in Burma would not know about these protests. Some 80 percent of the population are farmers and are barely literate, and the media is controlled by the state.

Intellectuals and activists do know of the protests, but Aung San Suu Kyi says nothing about the WTO and the anti-globalisation movement.

I think it is fair to say that she would be friendly to business. But she thinks it is wrong for it to exploit Burma while there is a dictatorship.

There is no sense in Burma of how globalisation could affect people, of the damage it could do.

I think many people are naive about how companies will take advantage. Multinational corporations will be able to exploit the situation very easily. Activists in the movement are inspired by struggles in other countries, however.

They are looking for models to emulate – like South Africa, Indonesia, East Timor, Serbia and the Philippines.

There is now a lot of international pressure on the regime to talk to Aung San Suu Kyi.

Negotiations with her began last October, but no one knows the content of the talks. There are rumours that she is prepared to accept less than full democracy, perhaps power sharing and some kind of five-year transition period.

But ultimately I think the movement will be successful.

People will act, once the space is created. I wrote this book because I wanted more people to know about what is going on, and I wanted more people to understand the experiences of ordinary people under military rule.

I wanted to explain how the military makes it difficult for people to take action but how all the time resistance is taking place, even if you can&#39;t see it.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13121

[Sky]

The BWtS was hardly Socialist,That is false. Land reform, nationalization, ans socialist industrial planning formed the keystones of economic policy.

The basic priniples of the Socialist Program Party were that the exploitation of man should be brought to an end, the establishment of a socialsit democratic strength, the principal strength of which was to derive from the alliance of workers and peasants. The BSPP declared: "The Burmese Socialist Programme Party studies that texts and treatises of the Marxist-Leninists and of the non-Marxist-Leninists alike. In no area, political, economic, or otherwise, is the study restricted."


it included military rule,In the impoverished developing world, the military is the vanguard of the people due to the absence of a well organized proletariat represented by a mass communist party. The military is the force that has carried out revolution in Egypt (1952), Iraq (1958), Syria (1963), Somalia (1969), Sudan (1969), Libya (1969), Ethiopia (1974), and Peru (1968).

repression of minorities
The Burmese Socialist Program Party sought to develop national unity and establish internal order in the face of challenge from numerous armed groups. Ethnic feudal separatists and warlords maintained their own armies and exert control over vast sections of the country. Feudal separatist groups received significant support from the hegemonist regime in Peking.

severe isolationism
That is false. General Ne Win visited China in August 1971 and Chinese aid programs resumed shortly after. Relations were quite friendly with the USSR and India. Moscow spoke favorably that Burma took a non-capitalist road and was seeking to establish a socialist state.

ethnic cleansing
The Burmese people were entitled to safeguard the territorial integrity of their nation and to prevent its feudal fragmentation.

What we are seeing happening right now is a struggle between two imperial powers, China and the junta it backs, and the US who is trying to covertly overthrow the junta thereby removing Chinese imperial control and install it&#39;s own puppet government in order to gain control of the country itself.
Disagreed. While China has played a constructive role on the matter, it is the USA that has been behaving in an imperialist manner. China cannot seriously be likened to the USA since China does not exercise significant political control beyond its borders.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:21 pm
In the impoverished developing world, the military is the vanguard of the people due to the absence of a well organized proletariat represented by a mass communist party.
You&#39;re saying the military can take the place of the proletariat in making a socialist revolution?&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ComradeR]

That is false. Land reform, nationalization, ans socialist industrial planning formed the keystones of economic policy.
You seem to be missing the fundamental point that the country is ruled by a junta of bourgeois generals, not the workers who hold no power what so ever. Nationalization means nothing if the workers do not control the state, which is the case in Myanmar/Burma where it is the generals who are in control.

In the impoverished developing world, the military is the vanguard of the people due to the absence of a well organized proletariat represented by a mass communist party. The military is the force that has carried out revolution in Egypt (1952), Iraq (1958), Syria (1963), Somalia (1969), Sudan (1969), Libya (1969), Ethiopia (1974), and Peru (1968).
That statement is a slap in the face to everything Marxism stands for, your suggesting that the Army (a major part of the bourgeois state) lead by bourgeois generals are going to somehow make a Socialist revolution? Coups carried out by the military do not lead to the DotP, it leads to bourgeois military dictatorship.

Disagreed. While China has played a constructive role on the matter, it is the USA that has been behaving in an imperialist manner. China cannot seriously be likened to the USA since China does not exercise significant political control beyond its borders.
China has been recently trying to extend it&#39;s economic (i.e. imperialist) control over third world nations. While the US is the aggressor in this case it is still a clash of imperial interests. Both are struggling against each other covertly for neo-colonial control over the country.