Military junta, Myanmar,Aung San Suu Kyi,Monks

[Jay Moksha]

Whats your opinion on this issue?

[Faux Real]

Non-violent protest in the face of a military dictatorship, supported by Imperialist powers, is laughable.

These monks comprised a very small portion of the Myanmar working class and they didn't help fuel a revolution. Sure, it's commendable and I wish they hadn't been slaughtered etc.. but it was still a pretty stupid thing to do.

The cries for 'democracy' or foreign help are also unappealing to me.

This 'democracy' the monks and First World 'do-gooders' are calling for what wouldn't be a democracy but just another representative republican puppet regime allowing its resources to be raped by first world industrialists/companies.

The foreign help wouldn't work unless the 'helper' attacked the PRC and if not wait for retaliation which not many countries or organizational bodies are willing to face for the sake of their fragile economies that rely on China.

They're stuck in a ditch, soon to become a grave -- unless a militant worker's movement replaces the dead monks.

But that's just my opinion...

[RNK]

Of course, there'll be a bunch of so called "revolutionaries" on this website who will urge that the only acceptable course of action would be for that very sam "democracy" to be institutionalized and for those industrialists to rape and pillage Myanmar. Because, apparently, you're not allowed by the golden rules of Marx to organize along class-lines and commence in class war against any dictatorship, unless that raping and pillaging has occured.

Hence the silence towards this thread. In the eyes of many here, the people of Myanmar are on their own -- they can come back after they've been exploited by capitalism for a few decades, but not sooner.

[Lynx]

Only when the majority of people have nothing left to lose will they be willing to face the Tatmadaw. If they are unarmed they will be slaughtered. Human wave attacks are terribly inefficient :(

[Faceless]

Non-violent protest in the face of a military dictatorship, supported by Imperialist powers, is laughable.

These monks comprised a very small portion of the Myanmar working class and they didn't help fuel a revolution. Sure, it's commendable and I wish they hadn't been slaughtered etc.. but it was still a pretty stupid thing to do.

I think that such a condescending attitude towards the Burmese people is disgusting. These people have suffered enormously for decades under a corrupt, rotting regime. These Burmese monks come from ordinary families, and have family connections with the rest of the peasant and working classes. It isn't through a worked out plan to overthrow the dictatorship that they have taken to the streets, but the need, the want and the dire poverty provoked by the corruption of the junta. It was the price of fuel which ultimately sparked the demonstrations and in these conditions it takes great bravery to come on to the streets.


This 'democracy' the monks and First World 'do-gooders' are calling for what wouldn't be a democracy but just another representative republican puppet regime allowing its resources to be raped by first world industrialists/companies.

The monks don't have a leadership which has been demanding "democracy". What the monks want is obvious. Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with the monks aspirations or those of the Burmese people. Her talk about "peaceful protest", "democracy" and so on is purposefully to act like a damp cloth on these protests, trying to smother them as best she can so that they can play the limited role she and the Imperialists intend for them. Suu Kyi is filling a leadership vacuum in the absence of anything else.

On the other hand, that everyone in the west from the US to the UN to the UK to the EU and their slave press have hailed this as a great, democratic "saffron revolution" is testimony to the imperialist intentions of these nations and the fact that Suu Kyi is nothing but a pawn to imperialism.

Remember Aung San, the father of Suu Kyi, fought for "independence" by siding first with Japanese Imperialism and then with British Imperialism during the 2nd world war. There will be no such thing as "independence" for Burma with the yoke of imperialism hanging round its neck.

The west primarily wants Burma to be ITS sphere of influence and usurp Chinese influence there so as best to rape the region. The tragedy is that in these conditions if there was a strong party with a marxist leadership, the outcome would be very different. As it is the victory of Aung San Suu Kyi would no doubt usher in futher privatisation and the domination of western imperialism. What is necessary to satisfy the urgent needs is not privatisation and liberalisation of the economy but workers control and democratic control over the land and the industries, integrating Burma into a socialist South East asian continent.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:21 pm
I think that such a condescending attitude towards the Burmese people is disgusting. These people have suffered enormously for decades under a corrupt, rotting regime. These Burmese monks come from ordinary families, and have family connections with the rest of the peasant and working classes. It isn't through a worked out plan to overthrow the dictatorship that they have taken to the streets, but the need, the want and the dire poverty provoked by the corruption of the junta. It was the price of fuel which ultimately sparked the demonstrations and in these conditions it takes great bravery to come on to the streets.
"As for criticism, do it in good time; don't get into the habit of criticizing after the event." ~Mao Tse-Tung, On th Question of Agricultural Co-operation (July 31, 1955).

What you refer to as "condescending attitude," we refer to as a needed thought. Charging without arms into the streets against the military was indeed a stupid move on the part of the monks. Never mind that they are exploited and undergoing great tragedy- that is no excuse for error, and such constructive criticism is needed before it becomes useless. Harsh words teach the best.

[Faceless]

Firstly, who are "we"?

Secondly, the poster I was referring to made no such "constructive criticism". I do not expect monks marching on the street unarmed will bring down the Burmese regime, but that doesn't mean I have to laugh at them does it? Constructive criticism would be aimed to win over the mass of the workers and peasants and particularly the most advanced elements. What is lacking in Burma is leadership. Aung San Suu Kyi is a false leader, she can bring nothing but betrayal to the Burmese people. But did rev0lt have any strong words for her? No. He was content to preach to the Burmese monks as acting "laughably" and "stupidly". Who is he going to win over to the ideas of Marxism with that attitude? The pacifism of Suu Kyi is indeed criminal but the monks, as I said, do not have a leadership and a democratic structure. You can't expect these spontaneous demonstrations to take on a revolutionary, insurrectionary charater just because it'd be nice.

Do you think the Bolsheviks would have had a chance of winning over the Russian proletariat if they had stood on the sidelines in February 1917 and preached about how laughable the Petrograd workers were when they went on demonstrations demanding bread unarmed? I'm not saying the conditions are the same, but putting the monks in the same bracket as middle class "western do-gooders" is crass and stupid. It was condescending and was not constructive.