Results 21 to 40 of 500
No problem.
True. But the way bailey_187 has reacted is in response to the cumulative slandering of the revolution and revolutionaries by these other "revolutionary leftists". I don't think that every person belonging to any other so called "leftist" ideology is a revisionist. In fact, I believe that most of them actually are passionate supporters of communism.
But we cannot remain calm when most of these people unleash their hatred, which has probably been directed away from the ruling classes by their political leadership, on the ongoing revolutions. If they are so sceptical about all this then why don't they visit India or Philippines(where the communist movements are the most powerful now) and verify for themselves? Or better still why don't they start revolutions of their own?
It is a typical feature of human psychology that it makes people draw conclusions independent of reality, just to defend the ideology they were introduced to initially. This must be overcome. Hence, if you are really interested in finding out about these movements, you must take the risk of coming to the third-world and verifying them.
Good for the Bourgeoisie.I am indeed learning a lot by the fact that you never answer any of my questions or arguments about basic Maoist theory.
Wow, this is what you get for not checking the politics section for one week; of course there was absolutely noting, not one single word about this in the media. Great news!
Now let's hope that the Maoists will ward this massive attack off, best of luck to them and hopefully the governemnt will weaken it position only more through this step.
So it was a simple misunderstanding and of course, I can understand your reactions.
But the point is, that within the revolutionary left there are enough sectarians (not just within the Tendency I belong to!). So I think those who are interested in an open dialogue between the several revolutionary camps, should try to keep discussions based on facts and hopefully objective analysis and discuss their basic problems with each other in extra threads.
Of course, these basic discussions between the different tendencies of marxism are very necessary and I criticise the maoist theory and movement for many things. But this brings me not away from supporting actual revolutionary movements like, in this case, the Naxalites.
See? I teach you in a unique manner.Indeed.
Exactly.Even the bourgeois have factions, you know.One faction of the bourgeois may be scared, but another faction is not.
This isn't the first time a faction of the bourgeoisie has tried to start a revolution to gain control and pretend its a pro-worker socialist revolution.
Hitler did the same thing. It hurt some of the bourgeoisie, bankers, the petit bourgeoisie, and anyone who didn't match up to Hitler's racial purity standards, but many corporations benefited.
Part of the bourgeoisie wants maoism so they can be the "national capitalist" class part of the "4 classes theory".
Can any maoist seriously justify this? That completely defeats the purpose of the revolution if you allow any part of the capitalist class to continue stealing labor from workers.
I could understand if you were just leaving it up to the workers, like the capitalists could keep owning the means of production until the workers agree they want to assert their control and get outside help (whether from the state or other groups) if the capitalists dont yield. But having a state that will actively defend unjust capitalist property rights over labor against the workers who produced that labor is wrong.
Lol you're seriously comparing the Maoist-led revolutionary movement in India to the German Nazis? You fail.
The relatively small size of the proletariat in third world countries, and the huge size of the peasantry, impairs it from seizing power as a single class. But the very existence of the proletariat in a country implies that it can form a united front with other oppressed classes to overthrow imperialism.
Therefore, if the bourgeoisie leads a revolution in a third world country(since the maoist revolutions are far from complete, I won't take into account the incompleteness factor of a bourgeois revolution), it cannot allow the masses to actually take part in class struggle, because then the proletariat would inevitably snatch the leadership of the revolution from the bourgeoisie.
If you carefully go through the material I linked to in my previous post, you will find that even in a small place, the militia that takes part in military action is huge. Of course, bourgeois elements in the communist party will try to seize power, but the masses are educated in Marxism through direct participation in class-struggle and try to resist them.
As the communists seize power locally, they transform the semi feudal - semi colonial economy into a new democratic one, i.e. the economic stages of capitalism are completed under the leadership of the proletariat. This involves transforming the peasantry into the proletariat, and leading it into bitter class struggle against the national bourgeoisie.
It's interesting that the Maoists are making progress in their struggle, but the dearth of information about life in areas under their control leaves me completely in the dark on how they would behave if they took power.
The proper response is to support all revolutionary movements, even if they aren't asking you for advice on how to run their revolution.
Well they are most active in the really undeveloped tribal areas, which do not have internet, so information doesn't get online too easily. However there are a few blogs and stuff with cool up to date info on the movements http://indianvanguard.wordpress.com/ http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/
Formerly zenga zenga !
Who says that there aren't much supporters of the maoist movement in the city proletariat in India. In India, a democracy(!), you can now get arrested if you were found with just a maoist leaflet. I may also be imprisoned for this writing if someone will diclose my identity to the police i.e. state.
To those "leftists(!)", who often witch haunt Stalin, please come to India and learn the new "anti-terrorist" (say anti revolutionary) laws. Moreover, the police, para military forces, military often enjoy some over constituional rights. The colonial and feudal legacies can be felt all over the country.
DO YOU KNOW, IN INDIAN DEMOCRACY, IF A MILITARYMAN KILLED ANY NON-MILITARY CITZEN, HE/SHE CAN NOT BE BROUGHT TO COURT FOR JUSTICE. THIS IS THE LAW OF THIS DEMOCRATIC LAND.
It's a part of Maoist strategy to liberate the countrysides first, surrounding the cities and take those cities only afer the countryside has been secured. So it is probably most support for them comes from the poor rural population.
Amen, comrade.
Yes, the Maoists do have support in the urban areas of India aswell.
Formerly zenga zenga !
....which begs the question of how we go about defining a "revolutionary movement". My common sense tells me that a revolutionary movement is a movement that seeks to implement fundamental changes in the way societies are organized, i.e. a revolution, with the ultimate aim of obtaining a society of abundance and freedom, known as communism. My knowledge of Marxism tells me that the overthrow of capitalism can only come about as a result of the struggles of the working class, and that communism, as well as the transitional stage between communism and capitalism, must involve workers having control over the means of production, and effectively being in charge of society. Unfortunately, in no country where a Maoist organization has taken power has the working class ever had a major role in the overthrow of the previous regime, and, once they've established themselves in government, these organizations have frequently carried out attacks against the working class, with their leaders transforming themselves into a new ruling class, intent on using the working class as a means to develop the national economy, and enhance their own material privileges. Mao was actually quite honest about what he was doing in China, as he, like his Menshevik predecessors, argued that the CPC would carry out the construction of New Democracy once it had toppled the KMT and established itself as the foremost party in government, under which capitalism would continue to exist with small modifications, and, as a result, the working class would continue to be deprived of power, and suffer exploitation at the hands of the bosses. It is perhaps for this reason that, according to the government's own statistics, the number of businessmen in eight major cities had increased by 27% by the end of 1951, and the average rate of profit was a remarkable 29% in 1951 and 31% in 1953 - hardly evidence of socialist transformation.
In light of the above, what reason do I have to expect revolutionary change from the Maoists in India?
I really do wish I had more information on the Maoist "Revolution". I'm all for Class struggle, and the way in which the maoists are repressed is truely an indictor of the true nature of India's supposed "Democracy".
My concern is wheather this is a genuine Revolution, or just another Coup'de'tat by a Leninist party. If this truely is a rural revolution against the gross inequality seen in India, then great.
If this is a Leninist excuse to take advantage of a mass movement in order to gain power, then I'd prefer it if they failed. I don't want to see yet another Totalitarian regime masquarading as Socialism, we've seen enough of those already.
"I'd rather be ruled by a mob than a tyrant" - Kwisatz Haderach
The core of Lenin's conception of the party is that the most class-conscious section of the working class should form its own organizations, and, by intervening in the struggles that involve the whole of the class, develop the consciousness of the class to the point where it is capable of taking power as an act of self-emancipation. This has nothing to do with a party seeking to bring liberation to people, from above. The Maoists in India to do not reflect Lenin's ideas firstly because the majority of their members are draw from either the peasantry or the ranks of the intelligentsia, and secondly because the way that the party engages with both workers and peasants is characterized by substitutionism, whereby the party sets itself apart from the masses, and reduces their role to one of passive support and ideological consumption. This is of course a reflection of the Maoist tradition - the governmental system of the Chinese state, for example, did not involve delegates who could be recalled by the people who elected them, despite Marx's recognition that this is one of the institutional features that makes a proletarian state different from a capitalist state, and in fact, both, the congresses of the CPC and the sessions of the National People's Congress, at which government policies were supposed to be debated, were held irregularly, with delegates to both frequently being selected from above, instead of being voted for.
There are two possibilties:
1) The Maoists are counter-revolutionaries and your analysis is correct.
2) The Maoists are genuine revolutionaries and your analysis is wrong; thus indicating that either your knowledge of Marxism is at an alarmingly low level, or you are a paid propagandist of the bourgeoisie.
Now let us look at the situation of various classes in the Indian society(that of any other third world country will vary by only small proportions):
At the countryside, big landlords are present. They always enjoy the support of some parliamentary party or the other(the parliamentary "left" included). They have private armies of their own. The local police officers will be either relatives or family-friends. Most notably, all of them belong to the higher castes.
Some member of the landlord's family will take up the career of a civil contractor and will be appointed for developmental projects at exponential bids.
The middle and big farmers: They are also very small in numbers. And in alliance to the land lord and the ruling party.
Peasantry(By peasantry I am referring to the lower peasantry. Middle and big farmers are excluded). More than 80% of the rural population. Mostly landless. The government joke of several land "donation"(from the feudal lords!!) or "redistribution" has resulted in a few getting their stretch of barren lands on which no crops can be grown. Some do own a piece of land. But as the climate in India fails the farmers very often, it is almost always to be found that they have their lands mortgaged and have to pay with most of their produce. Also, the government will not buy crops from farmers. Thus they are forced to sell their crops to merchants at astonishingly low prices. Often, this is a condition they agree to while borrowing money. Another evil is genetically modified crop farming. Initially the farmers were provided seeds, fertilizers and pesticides for very low prices or for free. But after they did away with the traditional varieties they realized that the genetically modified crops do not result in fertile seeds, and do not respond to any traditional fertilizers. Thus they became bound to the MNCs which sold these. Also, local edible plants used to grow in between the crop plants. During the rainy season, the fields would be flooded and the farmers could sell the large amount of fish that they caught. The pesticides have eliminated these plants and fish. Even big local ponds are noe empty and are used for breeding foreign varieties of fish. Another alternative source of income was selling milk, which was also used in household consumption. The government policy of the "white revolution" had Indian scientists coming up with the brilliant plan of cross-breeding friesian, jersey etc. with the "khariar", an indian breed used commonly in central India. To implement this program successfully, almost ALL khariar bulls were castrated. The cross-breeding resulted in offspring that died within their first month, or were extremely unhealthy and infertile. The khariar breed is practically extinct now.
Thus we see, that the peasantry has absolutely no option but to fight back.
Now let's take a look at the cities. About 28% of the population lives in the cities. There is the infintesimally small comprador bourgeoisie and the upper-middle class. A slightly larger middle-middle class. And a huge lower-middle class and a working-class.
The lower-middle class: People earn just enough to support the basic necessities and to send the children to an average government school(this throws them out of competition for the various engineering entrance exams). The workplace is dominated by the bosses belonging to the ruling party. In general their condition is deteriorating t othe verge of being transformed economically to the working class level. So they are mostly supporters of the revolution.
The working class: About 40 to 45% of the population. Ironically, most people are unemplyed. Working as domestic help in middle class homes is a major occupation. This makes them poorer than factory workers and also unable to unite at workplace. A large number of people are drivers of taxicabs and other vehicles which Indians call "auto", "cycle" and "pull"- rickshaws. The vehicles are often owned by some rich businessmen(except probably the "pull" and "cycle" varieties. The industrial proletariat is very small in relative numbers. But due to the imperial nature of capital, as there is even no bourgeois democracy, the proletariat takes to militant actions within the workplace. Worker-police battles are not unknown. However, these struggles are almost always misled by Trots who are employed to control trade unions by the parliamentary parties.
The Indian military consists of 1,414,000 active and 1,155,000 reserve troops. The paramilitary forces are 1,293,300 strong. Plus each province maintains its own police force.
These forces can rapidly reach any area within the city very quickly, and directly shoot at any ongoing movement. Hence, city-insurrections are not possible right now.
Therefore, the Indian Maoists have correctly applied the strategy of rural guerilla warfare, supported by the mass movements in the cities. Those who try to sound revolutionary by claiming that the working class has to engage in primary conflicts concerning the movement, have either mugged up Marxism and have no sense of reality, or deliberately want the defeat of both the revolution and the working class.
COMMUNISM !