Video on India's Maoist Revolution - and the Death Squads

[Saorsa]

Great footage of the Naxalite (Maoist) armed struggle growing in rural
India. Includes interview with Arundhati Roy (radical India writer and
political activists) and exposure of the government's system of
village level death squads. The main footage is from prison-like
"government relocation camps" -- the standard counterinsurgency
tactice of "catch the fish by drying up the sea."

(It is unfortunately not possible to embed)

Available through Journeyman Pictures, described as "London's leading independent distributor of topical news features, documentaries and footage."

We suggest we actively help circulate this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O2WwESwJhw

[more documentation on http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/]

[leftist manson]

Can't thankyou enough comrade:):thumbup:

[A New Era]

"The maoists have mined roads, bombed railways, busses, buildings and schools."

That doesn't sound very revolutionary.

[bleedingheart]

"The maoists have mined roads, bombed railways, busses, buildings and schools."

That doesn't sound very revolutionary.

These maoists are terrorists, who have killed more innocent people in their villages, than the cops!:crying: They have repeatedly targeted children in slums, and even older people haven't been spared.

But unfortunately, most radical comrades are blind to these facts, because in their mind's eye, the only enemy happens to be the state, and anyone opposing the state must be a leftist, by default. Pretty pathetic reasoning, no wonder we're not taken seriously.:rolleyes:

[A New Era]

Good points.

[Trystan]

"The maoists have mined roads, bombed railways, busses, buildings and schools."

That doesn't sound very revolutionary.

Indeed.

[Abluegreen7]

Yeah these idiots are attacking civillans the point is to attack the goverment. What does bombing Villages do? Makes the people hate you. No village means no place to live.:p These guys are like the Taliban.

[dez]

Nice documentary.

For the people that actually watched it, it shows how much effort the government backed militias put on killing people, removing them from their villages and blaming it on the maoists.
Its hard to really define what information we get is true, unless you are an intelligence analyst.
Both sides seem nasty, yet the maoists seem less nasty.
And we should be analyzing proposals.

[Abluegreen7]

Hope. You brought up a very good point thumbs up. It should noted Mao was pretty violent himself.

[Winter]

Nice documentary.

For the people that actually watched it, it shows how much effort the government backed militias put on killing people, removing them from their villages and blaming it on the maoists.
Its hard to really define what information we get is true, unless you are an intelligence analyst.
Both sides seem nasty, yet the maoists seem less nasty.
And we should be analyzing proposals.

You're absolutely right. Did the Maoists kill innocent people or did the police and militia do so and threatened people to tell the public the Maoists did it?

This video shows proof that the latter is true.

[Winter]

oops, duplicate.

[Winter]

Dave Pugh: Killings by Indian Gov’t Purification Hunters (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/dave-pugh-killings-by-indian-govt-purification-hunters/)

Posted by Mike E (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784) on August 17, 2008
http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/122522460_4fe2da897f3.jpg?w=300&h=199 (http://southasiarev.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/122522460_4fe2da897f3.jpg) Woman mourning her husband in India's tribal belt


Dave has recently been released from police detention in India. Here are the first quick comments he has to share with Kasama (http://kasamaproject.org/) starting from a discussion of a documentary video (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/20-minute-broadcast-on-indias-revolution/) posted and discussed (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/20-minute-broadcast-on-indias-revolution/)on this site.
I agree, this is a useful video, though it has a few shortcomings.

The footage of a Maoist training camp is brief and plays into stereotypes, like the “Death to imperialism” chants. It is also not entirely clear from the video that the Salwa Judum (or “Purification Hunt”) was launched by the Government as a counter-insurgency campaign against the Maoists, much like Operation Phoenix and the strategic hamletting by the US against the National Liberation Front in south Vietnam 40 years ago.

On a recent fact-finding trip to India to learn about forced displacement, I learned that the Salwa Judum has targetted and burned down, sometimes more than once, nearly 700 villages in the southern part of the state of Chhattisgarh, the stronghold of the Maoists. At one point, the narrator claims that the Maoists have also attacked the villagers, but just the opposite is true. The Salwa Judum has targetted these villages because they support the Maoists (or Naxalites, named after a famous peasant uprising in Naxalbari in 1967). It is when politically backward villagers take up arms for the government that they become legitimate targets for the Maoist dalams (squads).

At one point in the video, it is unclear who has burned down the structures in a village. In almost all cases, it is the Salwa Judum and the police/paramilitaries. In some cases, the Maoists have burned down schools. This is because the Salwa Judum and police forces usually set up their headquarters in schools, which are often the only brick/cement structures in these villages. The video also claims that the villagers are afraid of the Maoists when they run away from the camps to their villages; this too is not true. The Maoists welcome them back, help them rebuild and encourage the youth to join their movement in one capacity or another.

I had an opportunity to speak with Himanshu Kumar, the human rights activist interviewed in the video several times. He takes a position in opposition to both the Salwa Judum and the Maoists, though he focuses on the atrocities committed by the state forces including killing between 400 and 500 tribal villagers. He explained to me that Salwa Judum has emptied the local villages of about 300,000 tribals, but only 50,000 of them are being held in their camps. Another 50,000 or so have moved to adjoining states in temporary quarters. This leaves around 200,000 people who ran away into the forests rather than being herded into the camps. He believes that many, if not a majority, have moved into Maoist-controlled areas, swelling their mass base in southern Chhattisgarh from under 10,000 before the onset of Salwa Judum to around 100,000 today.
Besides the growing exposure in India and abroad of their cynical policy of “setting tribal-against-tribal” and treating residents of 700 villages as Maoist supporters, the Salwa Judum campaign has backfired badly for the Indian state, swelling the ranks of the Maoists in eastern
India’s tribal belt.

[PigmerikanMao]

The police pressure the public who are attacked by the SPO to report it as a Maoist attack. The actual harm caused by the maoists is far less than reported. :rolleyes:

[leftist manson]

The police pressure the public who are attacked by the SPO to report it as a Maoist attack. The actual harm caused by the maoists is far less than reported. :rolleyes:
Of course but i'm surprised that there are 'leftists' who buy this indian state propaganda just as they buy the 'black book of communism' prop. Unf***kingbelievable. Just in the other thread a social-democrat is calling these revolutionaries 'terrorists'. Wow

[Benos145]

God, Maoists are ludicrous really. They consistantly refuse to organize the working class, and constantly instead opt for glorifying the backward idiocy of rural life and the peasantry.

[leftist manson]

These maoists are terrorists, who have killed more innocent people in their villages, than the cops!:crying: They have repeatedly targeted children in slums, and even older people haven't been spared.

But unfortunately, most radical comrades are blind to these facts, because in their mind's eye, the only enemy happens to be the state, and anyone opposing the state must be a leftist, by default. Pretty pathetic reasoning, no wonder we're not taken seriously.:rolleyes:
Oh please! Any proper source for this bull apart from BJP Or Shiv Sena propaganda? Even the congress liberals won't say things like this.Mods , can you please dig deeper into where these useless lies and smears are coming from and why this kind of pathetic useless attempts to side-line these victories is going unnoticed on this revolutionary website? I've talked to many CPI and CPI(M) comrades in real life who have not even whisked on these mass murder smears and those guys are actually ballot-box soft-left types and are actually contesting with these 'maoists' for the public support

[Winter]

God, Maoists are ludicrous really. They consistantly refuse to organize the working class, and constantly instead opt for glorifying the backward idiocy of rural life and the peasantry.

Maoists do not refuse to organize the working class. Here in the U.S., Maoists are trying to do just that. As for your assertion that they glorify "backward idiocy" of the peasantry, that is just false. Anybody being oppressed by their own country as well as being victimized by external foriegn nations deserves liberation. And that is what these Maoists groups are doing. They have no other option but to take up arms, tear down monarchies, and fight to destroy all feudalistic elements in their society.

So please, take the time to study what is going on outside the bubble.

[Winter]

Eyes on the Maobadi: 4 Reasons Nepal’s Revolution Matters (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/eyes-on-the-maobadi-4-reasons-nepal%e2%80%99s-revolution-matters/)

Posted by Mike E (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784) on June 8, 2008
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/tikapur_nepal_2005.jpg?w=300&h=300 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/tikapur_nepal_2005.jpg)Help us circulate this essay widely. Please post it on websites and email it. Print it up, distribute it, and send us a pdf version to post.

Eyes on the Maobadi: 4 Reasons Nepal’s Revolution Matters



By Mike Ely
Something remarkable is happening. A whole generation of people has never seen a radical, secular, revolutionary movement rise with popular support. And yet here it is – in Nepal today.
This movement has overthrown Nepal’s hated King Gyanendra and abolished the medieval monarchy. It has created a revolutionary army that now squares off with the old King’s army. It has built parallel political power in remote rural areas over a decade of guerrilla war – undermining feudal traditions like the caste system. It has gathered broad popular support and emerged as the leading force of an unprecedented Constituent Assembly (CA). And it has done all this under the radical banner of Maoist communism — advocating a fresh attempt at socialism and a classless society around the world.
People in Nepal call these revolutionaries the Maobadi.

Another remarkable thing is the silence surrounding all this. There has been very little reporting about the intense moments now unfolding in Nepal, or about the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) that stand at their center. Meanwhile, the nearby Tibetan uprisings against abuses by China’s government got non-stop coverage.
There are obvious reasons for this silence. The Western media isn’t thrilled when people in one of the world’s poorest countries throw their support behind one of the world’s most radical movements.

But clearly many alternative news sources don’t quite know what to make of the Nepali revolution. The Maobadi’s mix of communist goals and non-dogmatic methods disturb a lot of leftist assumptions too. When the CPN(Maoist) launched an armed uprising in 1996, some people thought these were outdated tactics. When the CPN(Maoist) suspended armed combat in 2006 and entered an anti-monarchist coalition government, some people assumed they would lose their identity to a corrupt cabal. When the Maoists press their current anti-feudal program, some people think they are forgetting about socialism.

But silent skepticism is a wrong approach. The world needs to be watching Nepal. The stunning Maoist victory in the April elections was not, yet, the decisive victory over conservative forces. The Maobadi are at the center of the political staqe but they have not yet defeated or dismantled the old government’s army. New tests of strength lie ahead.

The Maoists of Nepal aren’t just a opposition movement any more – they are tackling the very different problems of leading a society through a process of radical change. They are maneuvering hard to avoid a sudden crushing defeat at the hands of powerful armies. As a result, the Maobadi of Nepal are carrying out tactics for isolating their internal rivals, broadening their appeal, and neutralizing external enemies.

All this looks bewildering seen up close. This world has been through a long, heartless stretch without much radicalism or revolution. Most people have never seen what it looks like when a popular communist revolution reaches for power.
Let’s break the silence by listing four reasons for looking closely at Nepal.
Reason #1: Here are communists who have discarded rigid thinking, but not their radicalism.

Leaders of the CPN(Maoist) say they protect the living revolution “from the revolutionary phrases we used to memorize.”

The Maobadi took a fresh and painstakingly detailed look at their society. They identified which conditions and forces imposed the horrific poverty on the people. They developed creative methods for connecting deeply with the discontent and highest hopes of people. They have generated great and growing influence over the last fifteen years.

To get to the brink of power, this movement fused and alternated different forms of struggle. They started with a great organizing drive, followed by launching a guerrilla war in 1996, and then entering negotiations in 2006. They created new revolutionary governments in remote base areas over ten years, and followed up with a political offensive to win over new urban support. They have won victory in the special election in April, and challenged their foot-dragging opponents by threatening to launching mass mobilizations in the period ahead. They reached out broadly, without abandoning their armed forces or their independent course.

The Maobadi say they have the courage “to climb the unexplored mountain.” They insist that communism needs to be reconceived. They believe popular accountability may prevent the emergence of arrogant new elites. They reject the one-party state and call for a socialist process with multi-party elections. They question whether a standing army will serve a new Nepal well, and advocate a system of popular militias. And they want to avoid concentrating their hopes in one or two leaders-for-life, but instead will empower a rising new generation of revolutionary successors.

Nepal is in that bottom tier of countries called the “fourth world” – most people there suffer in utter poverty. It is a world away from the developed West, and naturally the political solutions of the Nepali Maoists’ may not apply directly to countries like the U.S. or Britain. But can’t we learn from the freshness they bring to this changing world?

Will their reconception of communism succeed? It is still impossible to know. But their attempt itself already has much to teach.

Reason #2: Imagine Nepal as a Fuse Igniting India

Nepal is such a marginalized backwater that it is hard to imagine its politics having impact outside its own borders. The country is poor, landlocked, remote and only the size of Arkansas. Its 30 million people live pressed between the world’s most populous giants, China and India.

But then consider what Nepal’s revolution might mean for a billion people in nearby India.

A new Nepal would have a long open border with some of India’s most impoverished areas. Maoist armed struggle has smoldered in those northern Indian states for decades – with roots among Indian dirt farmers. Conservative analysts sometimes speak of a “red corridor” of Maoist-Naxalite guerrilla zones running through central India, north to south, from the Nepali border toward the southern tip.
Understanding the possibilities, Nepal’s Maobadi made a bold proposal: that the revolutionary movements across South Asia should consider merging their countries after overthrowing their governments and creating a common regional federation. The Maobadi helped form the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia (CCOMPOSA) in 2001, which brought together ten different revolutionary groupings from throughout the region.

A future revolutionary government in Nepal will have a hard time surviving alongside a hostile India. It could face demands, crippling embargos and perhaps even invasion. But at the very same time, such a revolution could serve as an inspiration and a base area for revolution in that whole region. It could impact the world.
Reason #3: Nepal shows that a new, radically better world is possible.

Marx once remarked that the revolution burrows unseen underground and then bursts into view to cheers of “Well dug, old mole!”

We have all been told that radical social change is impossible. Rebellion against this dominant world order has often seemed marked by backward-looking politics, xenophobia, lowered sights and Jihadism. And yet, here comes that old mole popping up in Nepal — offering a startling glimpse of how people can transform themselves and their world.

Some of the world’s poorest and most oppressed people have set out in the Nepali highlands to remake everything around them — through armed struggle, political power, and collective labor. Farming people, who are often half-starved and illiterate have formed peoples courts and early agricultural communes. Wife beating and child marriage are being challenged. Young men and women have joined the revolutionary army to defeat their oppressors. There is defiance of arranged marriage and a blossoming of “love matches,” even between people of different castes. There is a rejection of religious bigotry and the traditions of a Hindu monarchy. The 40 ethnic groups of Nepal are negotiating new relations based on equality and a sharing of political power.

All this is like a wonderful scent upon the wind. You are afraid to turn away, unless it might suddenly disappear.

Reason #4: When people dare to make revolution – they must not stand alone.

These changes would have been unthinkable, if the CPN(Maoist) had not dared to launch a revolutionary war in 1996. And their political plan became reality because growing numbers of people dared to throw their lives into the effort. It is hard to exaggerate the hope and courage that has gripped people.

Events may ultimately roll against those hopes. This revolution in Nepal may yet be crushed or even betrayed from within. Such dangers are inherent and inevitable in living revolutions.

If the Maobadi pursue new leaps in their revolutionary process, they will likely face continuing attacks from India, backed by the U.S. The CPN(Maoist) has long been (falsely!) labeled “terrorists” by the U.S. government. They are portrayed as village bullies and exploiters of child-soldiers by some human rights organizations. Western powers have armed Nepal’s pro-royal National army with modern weapons. A conservative mass movement in Nepal’s fertile Terai agricultural area has been encouraged by India and Hindu fundamentalists.

Someone needs to spread the word of what is actually going on. It would be intolerable if U.S.-backed destabilization and suppression went unopposed in the U.S. itself.

Here it is: A little-known revolution in Nepal.
Who will we tell about it? What will we learn from it? What will we do about it?

[RedHal]

These maoists are terrorists, who have killed more innocent people in their villages, than the cops!:crying: They have repeatedly targeted children in slums, and even older people haven't been spared.

But unfortunately, most radical comrades are blind to these facts, because in their mind's eye, the only enemy happens to be the state, and anyone opposing the state must be a leftist, by default. Pretty pathetic reasoning, no wonder we're not taken seriously.:rolleyes:

and where do you get these so called facts from? Just because you reject Fox news doesn't mean you know the facts.

[Saorsa]

Just because you reject Fox news doesn't mean you know the facts.

This "comrade" strikes me as the type who doesn't reject Fox news. The bullshit he's spouting sounds just like the sort of thing that would come out of O'Riley's poisoned lips.

[leftist manson]

This "comrade" strikes me as the type who doesn't reject Fox news. The bullshit he's spouting sounds just like the sort of thing that would come out of O'Riley's poisoned lips.
Exactly! comrade did you read my post above?

[Saorsa]

I think so, yeah. Yoy get used to this sort of attitude on Revleft - there are a lot of people out there that claim to be revolutionaries, yet blindly swallow whatever piece of bullshit propaganda the ruling class and it's media outlets hand to them. "Argh OMG the Ma0istz r liek terrorists, thay r liek bomming skulz wow Z0mfG!!!!!"

If a documentary made by a non-communist says so, it must be true.

[bleedingheart]

For those who're questioning my motives, I know all this, NOT from the news, but directly. Why? Because I happen to be an Indian, and I know these things directly. As an Indian, I know both the political and social situation in the subcontinent.

So please trust me when I say these maoists (or any party claiming to represent workers) aren't sincere. The situation in India and the third-world nations isn't like the west at all. India is basically a poor, illiterate nation with a violent history, so the working class movement here is NOT like the ones you see in the west, where educated people get together and not only organize a party with specifics goals and objectives, but try to attain these through peaceful and rational means. People here are basically a starving, uneducated population, with a propensity to indulge in violence at the drop of a hat. And this barbaric nature is being exploited by those parties claiming to be socialist. Unfortunately, people in the west are fooled into thinking that this is a proletariat revolution. Reality check: it's not.:( They're using workers and poor people, that's all there's to it. So don't let's pin our hopes on any of this.

Third-world countries, like India, are not ready for a proletariat revolution, because most people here are uneducated with little or no knowledge of socialist principles, political climate, and so on. They're a poor, ignorant people being manipulated by the bourgeois political parties. It would, therefore, be foolish of us to believe that this is a revolution in the true sense of the term. Trust me, this is nothing more than a street fight with a socialist label attached to it (how convenient!), which is common throughout India.:crying:

[Abluegreen7]

Comrade thats why nothing gets done in the west everyone is too scared to do anything.

[RedHal]

For those who're questioning my motives, I know all this, NOT from the news, but directly. Why? Because I happen to be an Indian, and I know these things directly. As an Indian, I know both the political and social situation in the subcontinent.

So please trust me when I say these maoists (or any party claiming to represent workers) aren't sincere. The situation in India and the third-world nations isn't like the west at all. India is basically a poor, illiterate nation with a violent history, so the working class movement here is NOT like the ones you see in the west, where educated people get together and not only organize a party with specifics goals and objectives, but try to attain these through peaceful and rational means. People here are basically a starving, uneducated population, with a propensity to indulge in violence at the drop of a hat. And this barbaric nature is being exploited by those parties claiming to be socialist. Unfortunately, people in the west are fooled into thinking that this is a proletariat revolution. Reality check: it's not.:( They're using workers and poor people, that's all there's to it. So don't let's pin our hopes on any of this.

Third-world countries, like India, are not ready for a proletariat revolution, because most people here are uneducated with little or no knowledge of socialist principles, political climate, and so on. They're a poor, ignorant people being manipulated by the bourgeois political parties. It would, therefore, be foolish of us to believe that this is a revolution in the true sense of the term. Trust me, this is nothing more than a street fight with a socialist label attached to it (how convenient!), which is common throughout India.:crying:

I don't give a fuck if you're an Indian, you sound like a typical western liberal. Your love of the impotent western groups and your comtempt for the oppressed Indian masses is sickening. How many revolutions has taken place through your glorious peaceful rational educated western workers/intellectuals? ZERO!

And how many revolutions has taken place amongst your contemptable backwards, filthy ignorant masses? Russian, China and Nepal. You can criticise their revolutions against your idealized version, that has never been tested in the real world, but they did it. They took power while your beloved rational peaceful western groups has done shit.

[Winter]

People here are basically a starving, uneducated population, with a propensity to indulge in violence at the drop of a hat. And this barbaric nature is being exploited by those parties claiming to be socialist. Unfortunately, people in the west are fooled into thinking that this is a proletariat revolution. Reality check: it's not.:( They're using workers and poor people, that's all there's to it. So don't let's pin our hopes on any of this.

Serious question that may clear things up here: What is your social class?

I ask that because maybe you are not seeing any direct results because they don't effect you in anyway, or perhaps they do effect you, but in a negative way, and you're being knowingly or unknowingly bias.

[bleedingheart]

I don't give a fuck if you're an Indian, you sound like a typical western liberal. Your love of the impotent western groups and your comtempt for the oppressed Indian masses is sickening. How many revolutions has taken place through your glorious peaceful rational educated western workers/intellectuals? ZERO!

And how many revolutions has taken place amongst your contemptable backwards, filthy ignorant masses? Russian, China and Nepal. You can criticise their revolutions against your idealized version, that has never been tested in the real world, but they did it. They took power while your beloved rational peaceful western groups has done shit.

In India (and in the third-world, generally), street fights are very common. People are essentially violent, and they fight over many, diverse things, ranging from water to religion to politics to pretty much anything under the sun.:( It's basically a culture of violence, fighting is a way of life in these nations.

And what you refer to as revolution happens to be an extension of this street fight, with the socialist label attached to it. Truth being, this is no revolution but just another fight, but this time on a large-scale, the guns having replaced sticks and stones.:rolleyes: I wouldn't take these revolutions seriously. Neither should you, or anyone else.:)

[bleedingheart]

Serious question that may clear things up here: What is your social class?

I ask that because maybe you are not seeing any direct results because they don't effect you in anyway, or perhaps they do effect you, but in a negative way, and you're being knowingly or unknowingly bias.

Middle class, I think.:)

[leftist manson]

Middle class, I think.:)
Is it any wonder?:);):)

[Saorsa]

Bleedingheart, you are an arrogant bourgeois liberal with an obvious contempt for the workers and peasants of you're country. You seem to view them as almost bestial, referring to their "barbaric nature" and "propensity for violence". I find this utterly repulsive.

I fail to see the connection between street-fights, and a revolutionary armed struggle led by a disciplined Marxist-Leninist organisation and striving for a clearly defined set of goals.

It may frighten people like you, but the Maoist-led People's War continues to grow and gain in strength, and the Indian masses are being mobilised and radicalised in the process of this. For all you're moralistic condemnation of this barbaric violence, the fact remains that the Maoists are winning, and the time will come when you have to choose which side you're on. When the Maoist forces are raising the red flag over you're neighbourhood, I'm sure they'll know how to deal with reactionaries like you.

However you'll probably have emigrated to a nice middle class neighborhood in the US by that time anyway, away from all those pesky proles with their mindless destructive ways. I'm sure you'll have fun telling your servants how stupid they are.

[bleedingheart]

Bleedingheart, you are an arrogant bourgeois liberal with an obvious contempt for the workers and peasants of you're country. You seem to view them as almost bestial, referring to their "barbaric nature" and "propensity for violence". I find this utterly repulsive.

I fail to see the connection between street-fights, and a revolutionary armed struggle led by a disciplined Marxist-Leninist organisation and striving for a clearly defined set of goals.

It may frighten people like you, but the Maoist-led People's War continues to grow and gain in strength, and the Indian masses are being mobilised and radicalised in the process of this. For all you're moralistic condemnation of this barbaric violence, the fact remains that the Maoists are winning, and the time will come when you have to choose which side you're on. When the Maoist forces are raising the red flag over you're neighbourhood, I'm sure they'll know how to deal with reactionaries like you.

However you'll probably have emigrated to a nice middle class neighborhood in the US by that time anyway, away from all those pesky proles with their mindless destructive ways. I'm sure you'll have fun telling your servants how stupid they are.

I have no contempt for anyone.

All I am saying is, we need to be extremely careful before assuming that every revolution has a socialist basis. Especially in third-world nations, this may not be the case, because people here are too ignorant to understand the basics of socialism.:( And if such people start a revolution, would it not be illogical, not to mention premature, to give it a socialist label?

OTOH, it is more logical to conclude they're fighting for personal gain, rather than for the greater good of the working class.:crying:

[bleedingheart]

Also, why do we have to view every revolution as a socialist revolution? Just because the militants say so???:confused::confused:

In that case, what of the Nazi Party? It also claimed to be a workers party, and considered the Jews to be the bourgeois. So do we have to see the Nazi-Jew conflict as a class conflict, rather than as a racial one?:confused:

Hopefully, people catch my drift. Just because the militants claim to be socialist, we cannot assume that they're fighting on behalf of the proletariats. Even the Nazis made similar claims, that they represented the working class, and that the Jew represented the bourgeois, etc. etc....:crying:

[dez]

Also, why do we have to view every revolution as a socialist revolution? Just because the militants say so???:confused::confused:

In that case, what of the Nazi Party? It also claimed to be a workers party, and considered the Jews to be the bourgeois. So do we have to see the Nazi-Jew conflict as a class conflict, rather than as a racial one?:confused:

Hopefully, people catch my drift. Just because the militants claim to be socialist, we cannot assume that they're fighting on behalf of the proletariats. Even the Nazis made similar claims, that they represented the working class, and that the Jew represented the bourgeois, etc. etc....:crying:

The nazis, although having a "socialist" banner, never claimed to be marxists and were anti staunch anti communists and anti bolsheviks.
I suggest you doing some studying on your own instead of listening to your teachers word. Or looking for different sources for books.

[cyu]

As an Indian, I know both the political and social situation in the subcontinent.

Does every American know both the political and social situation in the US?


people here are too ignorant to understand the basics of socialism. And if such people start a revolution, would it not be illogical, not to mention premature, to give it a socialist label?

I assume you think they are too ignorant, but you yourself aren't too ignorant? What if I claim you are too stupid to understand politics and that you should just stay out of it while I do all the thinking? Would you like that?


Third-world countries, like India, are not ready for a proletariat revolution, because most people here are uneducated with little or no knowledge of socialist principles, political climate, and so on.

If you don't think someone has the right idea, then you talk to them about your own point of view. You might both learn something.

I would make the claim that most people in any capitalist nation get most of their ideas from the capitalist controlled media. I don't think it's special to India or the US or anywhere else. If you want to free people's minds, you have to work towards media democracy.

[bleedingheart]

The nazis, although having a "socialist" banner, never claimed to be marxists and were anti staunch anti communists and anti bolsheviks.

Exactly.:thumbup1: Like the Nazis, these militants may also have a socialist banner, while in reality, they could be bourgeois. And considering how communists in India act while in power (exactly like capitalists), our suspicion wouldn't be unfounded.:(

[dez]

Exactly.:thumbup1: Like the Nazis, these militants may also have a socialist banner, while in reality, they could be bourgeois. And considering how communists in India act while in power (exactly like capitalists), our suspicion wouldn't be unfounded.:(

National "socialism" consisted on criticizing capitalism as a tool of domination of the international jewry and boosting the qualities of the "aryan people".

Do you see the indian maoists doing that?

Because there is a huge gap between the two, that the borgeoise usually tries to put make up on and make it look smaller.

;)

[Winter]

I always try to treat everybody in a very civil manner, but...


Exactly.:thumbup1: Like the Nazis, these militants may also have a socialist banner, while in reality, they could be bourgeois.

You're accusing the Maobadi and Naxalites of being bourgeois!? Are you blind? These people were born, raised, and continue to live in shit conditions thanks to a government who doesn't give a fuck about them. I mean, do you actually read what you type? It seems somebody has given in to their local corporate media propaganda, buddy.


And considering how communists in India act while in power (exactly like capitalists), our suspicion wouldn't be unfounded.:(

The Naxalites have never been in power! How can you make such a claim? You have no idea how they would act while in power, but if they get the opportunity and follow through on their ideology, it would be progressive and good for the vast majority of the people.

You seriously need open your eyes and stop listening to what your national news is saying. Dig deep for independent news agencies that are not biased against those who are trying to change the status quo. It's apparent that your hatred for the Maoists stems from the fact that they are not looking out for your class interest. Maybe it's time you look beyond yourself and notice what is required in your country may not directly benefit you right now, but in the end, it would.

[Sam_b]

Especially in third-world nations, this may not be the case, because people here are too ignorant to understand the basics of socialism.http://www.revleft.com/vb/video-indias-maoist-t86280/revleft/smilies/sad.gif

Its not about ignorance at all, so get the hell of of your pedestal. A lot of your countrymen live of less than 500R a month and you're lambasting them for (essentially) not having access to resources and education so that they don't know the 'basics'. Your position is thoroughly reprehensable.

[Saorsa]

Why do you have to have a university degree to "understand socialism"? One of the leaders of the Socialist Party in Australia, Anthony Main, never went to university and became a socialist while working as a metalworker. From my conversations with him I'd say he's one of the coolest and most clued up Marxists I've met, so you're statement holds no water.


Exactly.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/thumbup1.gif Like the Nazis, these militants may also have a socialist banner, while in reality, they could be bourgeois

Um, the Nazis didn't even have a socialist banner. They were virulently anti-communist, anti-union, anti-socialist, anti-anything working class. They didn';t call for the destruction of capitalism and the creation of a new order based on equality for all of humanity, they called for a society based on Aryan rule over the "inferior races"! How on earth does the program of the CPI (M) have anything at all to do with fascism?!?

You need to provide a bit more of an argument than "they could be bourgeois". What have the Maoists said or done that is "bourgeois"?

[RHIZOMES]

Exactly.:thumbup1: Like the Nazis, these militants may also have a socialist banner, while in reality, they could be bourgeois. And considering how communists in India act while in power (exactly like capitalists), our suspicion wouldn't be unfounded.:(

I think you've got the two Communist Parties of India confused. :lol:

[bleedingheart]

As the thread has degenerated to name calling, I'll respectfully withdraw after this post.

My points in a nutshell:

* For a revolution to succeed, there has to be a strong intellectual foundation.
* The above is lacking in third-world nations, and therefore, revolutions taking place in the third-world cannot be taken seriously.
*Therefore, these third-world revolutions are essentially a struggle between rival political parties to capture power.:( And these parties come up with a socialist agenda to exploit the workers, NOT because they care about establishing a true socialist state.
* History reveals that the above statement is true, especially in third-world nations (examples: Communists in Bengal, India, Latin America, Russia, China. Contrast this with a civilized, westernized approach in Scandinavian countries:), for instance.) We ignore history at our own peril.
* In view of the above, revolution has to take place in the west, then others will follow. Domino effect ring a bell?

This is what I feel, and am not mocking the poor, ignorant masses at all. I am just coming to terms that a starving, ignorant population is not prepared for these things. West is better qualified, so a revolution that comes from the educated west would be in the best interests of the working class.

Edit: Just an anecdote as to why I feel the revolution has to start in the west, rather than in the east. An insightful white friend once told me (when I was in Australia) something about 'monkey see, monkey do,' in a subtle reference to whites being pioneers and the rest following them. He said politics is no different, and unless the approval for socialism comes from the west, it wouldn't take off elsewhere.:)

[Saorsa]

I think you've got the two Communist Parties of India confused. :lol:

There are a lot more than two Communist Party of Indias bruva... they probably number in the hundreds.


As the thread has degenerated to name calling, I'll respectfully withdraw after this post.


You started it when you referred to the "barbaric nature" of the workers and peasants of India mate.



* For a revolution to succeed, there has to be a strong intellectual foundation.

True, although theoretical would be a better term. You don't have to have a university degree to understand socialism.


* The above is lacking in third-world nations, and therefore, revolutions taking place in the third-world cannot be taken seriously.

You're full of shit. There are plenty of intellectuals in TW countries, and plenty of well read, clued up revolutionaries. Upon what do you base the statement that the TW doesn't have enough people who know their shit about socialism to lead a revolution?


*Therefore, these third-world revolutions are essentially a struggle between rival political parties to capture power.:( And these parties come up with a socialist agenda to exploit the workers, NOT because they care about establishing a true socialist state.

That is a liberal statement. All great socialist revolutions in history have come from poor, backward countries. You're argument is rubbish.


* History reveals that the above statement is true, especially in third-world nations (examples: Communists in Bengal, India, Latin America, Russia, China. Contrast this with a civilized, westernized approach in Scandinavian countries:), for instance.) We ignore history at our own peril.

Hmm yes, the capitalist Scandinavian countries you mean? The ones whose high standard of living is based on imperialismand the underdevelopment of the majority of the world? I think you must have misread the title of this forum - Revolutionary Left. We don't tend to talk about how "civilised" reformism is - we condemn it.


* In view of the above, revolution has to take place in the west, then others will follow. Domino effect ring a bell?

Seeking truth from facts ring a bell? You analyse the objective conditions, the historical trends, and form conclusions and set forth lines that reflect that. You don't say "i wish this would happen, so i think it could happen here best, sho thats how I'm going to determine my policies!".


This is what I feel, and am not mocking the poor, ignorant masses at all. I am just coming to terms that a starving, ignorant population is not prepared for these things. West is better qualified, so a revolution that comes from the educated west would be in the best interests of the working class.:)

You called them barbaric. That's fucking slander. The starving masses of the TW NEED revolution, and they are making it as we speak! You're just scared of it because you're a petit-bourgeois liberal who's terrified of the working class.

[Forward Union]

This is very interesting. Thank you very much for posting it!

[cyu]

Why do you have to have a university degree to "understand socialism"? One of the leaders of the Socialist Party in Australia, Anthony Main, never went to university and became a socialist while working as a metalworker. From my conversations with him I'd say he's one of the coolest and most clued up Marxists I've met, so you're statement holds no water.


Exactly - a political / economic "education" in "The West" is basically propaganda - it's like going to a Christian seminary to learn about religion. While there may be "opposing" views among Western graduates in terms of their political and economic views, it will be like the "opposing" branches of Christianity among graduates of Christian seminaries.


I am just coming to terms that a starving, ignorant population is not prepared for these things. West is better qualified, so a revolution that comes from the educated west would be in the best interests of the working class.
People who are already comfortable in their lives have less incentive to change the current system, even if they disagree with it. They may work against it in their own small ways, but how much time, effort, and risk are they willing to commit? It is the people who suffer the most under the current oppression that are most likely to take up arms and fight back against it.

Yes, people can be led astray by "false socialists" - who's to say they won't be led astray by the notorious "bleedingheart" himself? I wouldn't trust the supposedly "educated" anymore than the supposedly "uneducated" - an evil genius is more dangerous than an evil idiot.

[Chapter 24]

Third-world countries, like India, are not ready for a proletariat revolution, because most people here are uneducated with little or no knowledge of socialist principles, political climate, and so on.

Oh, and I guess you think people in the first world are? You think if I asked the "average American" if s/he could name me some basic principles of Marxism, they could? Maybe in your world everyone here (in the first world) is class-conscious, but trust me: people here are quite hesitant in trusting communism (due to the decades of bullshit Cold War propaganda).