Chances of victory for the Naxalites?

[Akshay!]

What's the probability that the Naxalites (Indian Maoists, etc.) would actually win some day? Is that even possible? (By "win" I mean overthrow the capitalist system in India.)

Also, I know this is a stupid question, but is there any chance that China has anything to do with them?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is impossible to tell with Operation: Greenhunt still in full effect. The government offensive has run deep and is still murderous with zeal to hunt down revolutionaries. By all accounts the Maoists are doing well by they are struggling nonetheless. Their chances for victory will be determined by how well they reorganize in relation to their set-backs and gains.

China will be of no help: they are a imperialist power and as such will not help a revolutionary faction in any serious manner.

[ind_com]

What's the probability that the Naxalites (Indian Maoists, etc.) would actually win some day? Is that even possible? (By "win" I mean overthrow the capitalist system in India.)

I think there is a good chance of the Indian Revolution achieving a nationwide victory within two decades or so. There are many technical problems, but so far many have been tackled well by the Indian revolutionary masses.

Also, I know this is a stupid question, but is there any chance that China has anything to do with them?

No.

[Akshay!]

It is impossible to tell with Operation: Greenhunt still in full effect. The government offensive has run deep and is still murderous with zeal to hunt down revolutionaries. By all accounts the Maoists are doing well by they are struggling nonetheless. Their chances for victory will be determined by how well they reorganize in relation to their set-backs and gains.

I think there is a good chance of the Indian Revolution achieving a nationwide victory within two decades or so. There are many technical problems, but so far many have been tackled well by the Indian revolutionary masses.

Again, this question might sound kinda silly but how exactly do they plan to take power? I mean, sure, they have influence over certain villages but India has an army with all kinds of advanced weapons and all - how exactly do the Maoists plan to defeat them (if at all)? Obviously I wish they win but it seems to me to be unlikely.

@ind_com - out of curiosity, can you lay out a somewhat detailed plan as to how they can have a nationwide victory within 2 decades?

[ind_com]

Again, this question might sound kinda silly but how exactly do they plan to take power? I mean, sure, they have influence over certain villages but India has an army with all kinds of advanced weapons and all - how exactly do the Maoists plan to defeat them (if at all)? Obviously I wish they win but it seems to me to be unlikely.

@ind_com - out of curiosity, can you lay out a somewhat detailed plan as to how they can have a nationwide victory within 2 decades?

The CPI(Maoist) has its own strategy and tactics, which are the application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the concrete conditions of India. It is different from what Maoists in other countries follow, and is mainly responsible for the CPI(Maoist) being able to liquidate the conventional government over a third of the country. Laying out a detailed plan is not possible here, but these are some points that are easy to deduce and indicate the advantages of the CPI(Maoist). These don't imply a victory within two decades though.

1) The Indian working class. The Indian working class numbers to a few crores and is extremely militant in nature. Even when it is not very organized politically, it strikes back violently at its bosses. The expansionist nature of the Indian comprador bourgeoisie has resulted concentration of a large number of Indian workers in the cities as the urban proletariat, the most advanced working class in history. Dependence on this section of the population helps Maoists to wield the proletarian class line everywhere in the country, and engage in militant actions within the cities with local support.

2) The size and experience of the CPI(Maoist). The CPI(Maoist) is a huge party, spread allover India and many places abroad. It also has experience over a vast variety of political and military situations, making it impossible even for a series of internal and external threats to put it in a compromising position.

3) The information age and availability of good technology in India. Though India is far behind the imperialist countries in general in terms of mass-availability of technology, it is possible to get most high-tech stuff in some place or the other in India. Using this and their widespread communication system, Maoists modernize themselves rapidly and sometimes even go ahead of the state forces in this aspect.

4) Long-standing communist bases. Some communist bases have stood their ground for decades and hence a generation has appeared in those places who are culturally compatible to socialism. They provide a steady stream of human resource for all revolutionary activities.

5) The demographic diversity of India. India is a country where no single community can be called the majority. Unlike in China where the Han population was the most active revolutionary portion, in India the minorities together are much more active in the revolution. Their nationalism has liquidated in the course of fighting collectively, so that bourgeois tendencies are very rare in the Indian Maoist movement.

6) External support and international situation. The CPI(Maoist) intervenes wherever the Indian state occupies other nations. In this way, it has forged alliances with national liberation groups in the North East. It also has many allies abroad. Internationally, the people's wars in other countries are also advancing, and communists in imperialist countries are organizing along newer military lines. If the international situation is utilized properly, no revolution in any country will be defeated by capitalism.

7) Sectarianism. Most of you would consider this as a negative point, but Indian Maoists are the biggest sectarians ever. There is no opposition to cooperating with whichever leftist group is willing to go ahead for revolutionary changes, but all other ideologies are considered revisionist in essence. Trotskyism, Left Communism of today, Hoxhaism etc. are all considered revisionism and Marxism-clad representation of capitalism. Guevarism is considered as armed revisionism though notable Guevarists are considered as respectable revolutionaries who made mistakes. The CPI(Maoist) openly opposes the so-called socialism of Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, China etc. as revisionist, though it supports them against US imperialism. It also supports only a handful among those who call themselves Maoist. Inside India itself, it opposes all the other big groups that call themselves Naxalites, with only three well known smaller ones being its allies. Parties like the MLPD etc. are not even remotely considered as revolutionary. RCP-USA and Kasama both began to be opposed years ago, and the CPN(M) was being considered as revisionist by many from 2006 itself, and revisionist elements within its theory were identified about 3 years prior to that. This of course alienates the CPI(Maoist) from many, but wrong statements or lines like the recent one from Gajurel or some from our respected Filipino comrades will not emerge from here.

[Zostrianos]

In this way, it has forged alliances with national liberation groups in the North East.

I hope you realize some of those "liberation" groups in the Northeast are Christian fundamentalists. The National Liberation front of Tripura is a Christian version of the Taliban, who force people to convert at gun point and have also murdered Marxists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#India

[Akshay!]

7) Sectarianism. Most of you would consider this as a negative point, but Indian Maoists are the biggest sectarians ever. There is no opposition to cooperating with whichever leftist group is willing to go ahead for revolutionary changes, but all other ideologies are considered revisionist in essence.

Do you consider that something good? If yes, why?

being able to liquidate the conventional government over a third of the country.

So, do they literally control 1/3 of the districts? I mean do they literally run them or do they have a few members in those districts?

The demographic diversity of India. India is a country where no single community can be called the majority.

Is that a net advantage to the movement? How?

The information age and availability of good technology in India. Though India is far behind the imperialist countries in general in terms of mass-availability of technology, it is possible to get most high-tech stuff in some place or the other in India. Using this and their widespread communication system, Maoists modernize themselves rapidly and sometimes even go ahead of the state forces in this aspect.

But they're poor people, how do they get the money to "modernize" them? How do they get their funding?

The expansionist nature of the Indian comprador bourgeoisie has resulted concentration of a large number of Indian workers in the cities as the urban proletariat, the most advanced working class in history. Dependence on this section of the population helps Maoists to wield the proletarian class line everywhere in the country, and engage in militant actions within the cities with local support.

From personal experience, I don't think the people who live in cities like New Delhi and Mumbai can really be considered militant.. at least not the upper middle class.. most of them don't care about politics.. they're busy with the same meaningless stuff as the people in US, etc.. maybe I'm wrong..

Laying out a detailed plan is not possible here, but these are some points that are easy to deduce and indicate the advantages of the CPI(Maoist).

But how will they take over the northern parts of India? Have they taken over any major "cities"? Do they have any presence outside the so called red corridor?

Lastly, why don't the more conservative people in China (who're still Maoists) give money to the Naxalites?

[Per Levy]

I think there is a good chance of the Indian Revolution achieving a nationwide victory within two decades or so.

a few questions about this rather optimistic view.

how many fighter do the naxalites have?

the naxalites operate since a long time, are there signs that the naxalites are content in what they have, like the farc in colombia?

would the naxalites accept a proletarian revolution that has nothing to do with them? or would they fight since they are so sectarian and all?

what is stopping the naxalites from becomeing like their idiological comrades in nepal?

do the naxalites have even a chance of spreading to any non jungle/mountain districts, like urban districts, and taking them?

[Ocean Seal]

Honestly, given the tract record of most Maoist protracted war groups, the chances of revolution are slim. That being said, I wouldn't rule it out being that the world is always in quite a delicate balance.

[ind_com]

I hope you realize some of those "liberation" groups in the Northeast are Christian fundamentalists. The National Liberation front of Tripura is a Christian version of the Taliban, who force people to convert at gun point and have also murdered Marxists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#India

The NLFT is very small and doesn't have much influence. There are other small groups too that are highlighted more but are of minimal importance to the struggle. The influence of fundamentalists is very low among the revolutionary groups. The bigger groups are somewhat influenced by Christianity, and deduce socialist ideas from there. The general tendency is shifting more towards Marxism with time, and in Manipur, a Maoist party has already become the principal revolutionary group.

[ind_com]

Do you consider that something good? If yes, why?

I think it is good to have such a line because it tells us which groups will ultimately side with the revolution and which won't.

So, do they literally control 1/3 of the districts? I mean do they literally run them or do they have a few members in those districts?

How is liquidating the government possible with just a few members? Most of those regions have thousands of revolutionaries and a situation of dual-power.

Is that a net advantage to the movement? How?

No single group can be the majority and have a chauvinistic attitude inside the revolutionary camp.

But they're poor people, how do they get the money to "modernize" them? How do they get their funding?

It is easy to get money and resources when you run a government. Once Maoists eliminate the exploiters in a locality, the people use the available resources efficiently, produce more than enough for their own subsistence, and still have hours to spare. By collective mobilization of this extra labour power, Maoists improve the infrastructure of production. Once this is done, getting money and further improvements follow. For example, the Maoist stronghold in central India is the only place in India where the people have created a fully functional rainwater-harvesting and irrigation system. Despite being outside of the most fertile zones of India, that region rarely faces any food shortage, and is maintaining itself despite military invasions by the Indian Government. The only problem is that once Indian state forces enter, they steal right and left from the masses. So, once Maoists become strong enough to resist these invasions for longer periods, technology can be made available for the masses.

From personal experience, I don't think the people who live in cities like New Delhi and Mumbai can really be considered militant.. at least not the upper middle class.. most of them don't care about politics.. they're busy with the same meaningless stuff as the people in US, etc.. maybe I'm wrong..

The upper middle class is generally reactionary and sides against the revolution. It is the working class that is the leading force of revolution, and the working classes of both Delhi and Mumbai are extremely militant.

But how will they take over the northern parts of India? Have they taken over any major "cities"? Do they have any presence outside the so called red corridor?

There are Maoist organizations everywhere in India other than Kashmir and most of North East. The red corridor is the region where they have the most influence. The armed struggle has not spread to the northern parts like Punjab, Haryana or Rajasthan yet, but they are not the sole form of Maoist organization.

Lastly, why don't the more conservative people in China (who're still Maoists) give money to the Naxalites?

You'd better ask them that, but i think their fundamental task is to revive Maoism in China, not financially help a movement that is already too big for them to make any difference financially. Even if you consider just the salary of guerrillas, the total expenditure comes at least to the order of tens of crores of Rupees.

[ind_com]

a few questions about this rather optimistic view.

how many fighter do the naxalites have?

The guerrilla and the conventional army is around a lakh or more.

the naxalites operate since a long time, are there signs that the naxalites are content in what they have, like the farc in colombia?

I don't know whether the FARC are content with anything less than overthrowing the Colombian Government, but Maoist practice in India definitely aims towards the World Revolution. At least the domestic expansion is clearly observable.

would the naxalites accept a proletarian revolution that has nothing to do with them? or would they fight since they are so sectarian and all?

Well I don't really believe that there can be a non-Maoist proletarian revolution today. But if something like that really happens, they will definitely have critical support from the Maoists.

what is stopping the naxalites from becomeing like their idiological comrades in nepal?

Deeper practice and adherence to an anti-parliamentary line, absence of a cult of personality, the general culture of questioning and criticizing every minute detail of a given line.

do the naxalites have even a chance of spreading to any non jungle/mountain districts, like urban districts, and taking them?

Many of the recent expansions are in places with little or no forest cover. The uprising in Nandigram was eventually defeated, but it lasted for several months, and that place is mostly a plane agricultural land. Lalgarh also has many non-jungle regions, and is witnessing a Maoist revival after the initial retreat. Narayanpatna in Orissa is again mostly agricultural land and is in a condition of dual power; much better than the previous two.

[Tim Cornelis]

With a mere 60,000 fighters, seemingly little urban support, no institutions of workers' power, I anticipate this "people's war" will end like the FARC, or the Shining Path, or the PKK. It will drag on for a few decades, and with it hundreds if not thousands of people will unnecessarily perish, then the Naxalites recognise a few thousand fighters cannot win against an army of 1,200,000 people, 2,000,000 reservists, and 1,300,000 paramilitaries. Especially given that their increased brutishness has diminished their support further. It will then start peace negotiations and disappear.
If they could win and do win, they'd implement New Democracy as I read in one of their documents. The same as Nepal. It's a dead-end fight with no winners.

[ind_com]

With a mere 60,000 fighters, seemingly little urban support, no institutions of workers' power, I anticipate this "people's war" will end like the FARC, or the Shining Path, or the PKK. It will drag on for a few decades, and with it hundreds if not thousands of people will unnecessarily perish, then the Naxalites recognise a few thousand fighters cannot win against an army of 1,200,000 people, 2,000,000 reservists, and 1,300,000 paramilitaries. Especially given that their increased brutishness has diminished their support further. It will then start peace negotiations and disappear.
If they could win and do win, they'd implement New Democracy as I read in one of their documents. The same as Nepal. It's a dead-end fight with no winners.

This post of yours is a good example of why we are so sectarian towards other tendencies and consider them to be representatives of capitalism. False information, dead-wrong analysis, and everything covered with a thin coating of Marxism, but clearly tuned to the interests of imperialism; there is no essential difference between your post and what someone in defenceforumindia would post on this topic. Every year they claim that Maoists have lost popularity and are going to give up, but the revolution only expands with time. There's no use spreading capitalist propaganda.

[Tim Cornelis]

This post of yours is a good example of why we are so sectarian towards other tendencies

Which is strange given that this has nothing to do with my tendency, or the Maoist tendency in general for that matter. It has to do with strategy, specifically workers' empowerment and workers' power.

and consider them to be representatives of capitalism.

Which is strange since a Naxalite document I read avowedly claimed to want to implement New Democracy, a document I think you linked me to (if not, another revleft member). A rather explicit capitalistic system.

I honestly don't see how I am a representative of capitalism. Is it because I said I think it's highly unlikely an army of 60,000 will win over an army totaling 4,000,000 armed personnel? Does that make me a capitalist and un-Marxist? This has nothing to do with politics, it has everything to do with realism.

False information,

Which?

dead-wrong analysis,

How?

and everything covered with a thin coating of Marxism,

This analysis has nothing to do with Marxism.

but clearly tuned to the interests of imperialism;

I reek a fallacy, but I'll bite, how? Honestly, how is saying you don't think a movement will be victorious "tuned to the interests of imperialism." For instance, I support the South African AbM, but I don't think it will be victorious for various reasons. How would that make me defending imperialism's interests? It makes no sense whatsoever.

there is no essential difference between your post and what someone in defenceforumindia would post on this topic.

Definitely a fallacy. This does not change whether or not my post was true.

Every year they claim that Maoists have lost popularity and are going to give up,

I didn't. I said it will drag on for decades. And my mentioning of loss of popularity was a prediction, by looking at the FARC. With violence being so prevalent it normalises, making those involved more prone to excesses or massacres. Thus, as the conflict drags on I anticipate more excesses leading to a loss of popularity for the Naxalites.

but the revolution only expands with time.

How can you have a revolution without workers' power? I have asked you and other revleft members several times for a source wherein it is mentioned what and how the Naxalites build workers' power. This is not a matter of sectarianism, as I've already several times said I (at least) critically support any movement, regardless of its tendency, that is building workers' power. So far someone, I think it was you, posted a link in response to my request with one sentence claiming (paraphrasing) "people's courts are more than just that." It does not explain what they are then.
If I look for information about the Zapatistas I can find multiple sources which verify the existence of Councils of Good Government, I can find multiple sources of the Abahlali baseMjondolo detailing how its internal democratic structure works, I can find multiple sources about the Syrian Kurdish areas under control of the PKK-affiliate and how they've set up a governing structure based on people's councils, people's committees, people's houses, and a West-Kurdistan Congress. I cannot, however, find any source which explain the non-military, worker-peasant structures that the Naxalites are supposedly building.

There's no use spreading capitalist propaganda.

Rather than call me capitalist and whatnot, respond to my "dead-wrong" analysis with arguments why you consider it wrong. So here is my position:

1) It is unrealistic to expect a victory of 60,000 armed personnel over 4,000,000 armed personnel.
2) It is unrealistic to expect proletarian emancipation without constructing workers' power, dare I say impossible.
3) Even ignoring this, the Naxalites advocate New Democracy, a class collaborationist and capitalist system, so their victory would be meaningless for socialism -- again, the same as with Nepal.

I remember in the last thread, there was an Al-Jazeera 'documentary' in which a former Maoist (though still communist) and negotiator says "If you do not wage class struggle, you'll end up with terrorrism." Which is exactly my criticism as well. Class struggle involves creating workers' power, which, ostensibly, the Naxalites do not do.

Please explain why these positions are wrong, and how they are capitalist propaganda.

[ind_com]

Which is strange given that this has nothing to do with my tendency, or the Maoist tendency in general for that matter. It has to do with strategy, specifically workers' empowerment and workers' power.

Which is strange since a Naxalite document I read avowedly claimed to want to implement New Democracy, a document I think you linked me to (if not, another revleft member). A rather explicit capitalistic system.

New democracy is not capitalism. Capitalism requires the bourgeoisie in power. The New Democratic Revolution has the working classes at its core.

I honestly don't see how I am a representative of capitalism. Is it because I said I think it's highly unlikely an army of 60,000 will win over an army totaling 4,000,000 armed personnel? Does that make me a capitalist and un-Marxist? This has nothing to do with politics, it has everything to do with realism.

Bourgeois view of revolutionary war always predicts defeat. Your analysis considers the strength of the Maoist fighting force as a constant, which is against the Marxist notion of struggle itself strengthening the revolutionaries. The Maoist force was nothing when it started. Then it grew to several hundreds, and thousands. It will be several lakhs by the time the Maoist Revolution achieves nationwide victory.

Which?

Your claims about increasing brutishness and diminishing support.

How?

The prediction of defeat.

This analysis has nothing to do with Marxism.

It does, throughout.

I reek a fallacy, but I'll bite, how? Honestly, how is saying you don't think a movement will be victorious "tuned to the interests of imperialism." For instance, I support the South African AbM, but I don't think it will be victorious for various reasons. How would that make me defending imperialism's interests? It makes no sense whatsoever.



Definitely a fallacy. This does not change whether or not my post was true.



I didn't. I said it will drag on for decades. And my mentioning of loss of popularity was a prediction, by looking at the FARC. With violence being so prevalent it normalises, making those involved more prone to excesses or massacres. Thus, as the conflict drags on I anticipate more excesses leading to a loss of popularity for the Naxalites.

You ignore the expansion of the revolution and predict defeat in almost a fictional manner, when you assume that the current number of Maoist fighters is not enough to defeat the government. This is too stupid a mistake for someone who really wants a revolution to succeed.

How can you have a revolution without workers' power? I have asked you and other revleft members several times for a source wherein it is mentioned what and how the Naxalites build workers' power. This is not a matter of sectarianism, as I've already several times said I (at least) critically support any movement, regardless of its tendency, that is building workers' power. So far someone, I think it was you, posted a link in response to my request with one sentence claiming (paraphrasing) "people's courts are more than just that." It does not explain what they are then.
If I look for information about the Zapatistas I can find multiple sources which verify the existence of Councils of Good Government, I can find multiple sources of the Abahlali baseMjondolo detailing how its internal democratic structure works, I can find multiple sources about the Syrian Kurdish areas under control of the PKK-affiliate and how they've set up a governing structure based on people's councils, people's committees, people's houses, and a West-Kurdistan Congress. I cannot, however, find any source which explain the non-military, worker-peasant structures that the Naxalites are supposedly building.

I have mentioned many times before the Janathana Sirkars, People's Revolutionary Committees, People's Militia etc. The People's Courts that are held by these organizations of workers' power are well known even in the bourgeois media. The Zapatistas have practically no fighting force left and don't wage war against the government anymore. They can open up their territories as much as they like and gain popularity for their pacifism. The CPI(Maoist) is the largest revolutionary group in the world today, and hence not many authors or journalists dare to involve themselves with it. There is no detailed report about the Maoist organs of people's power. What I said about the People's Court is that the mainstream media describes every decision-making gathering of the organs of people's power as a People's Court, which is inaccurate. Here are some more reports about the Janathana Sirkar, which again, are not detailed.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ou...-------/2488/1

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/1LnN...ml?facet=print

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/inves...ide-the-forest

The Maoist dominated PCAPA and CMAS are two good examples of mass organizations that exercised people's power. The PCAPA has been torn down and liquidated, but both of these organizations have involved themselves in local governance, land distribution etc. There is a good article by Arundhati Roy called 'Walking with the Comrades', where she mentions that a Maoist mass-front in Bastar alone has over 90,000 members. It should be understood that a movement that cannot mobilize and involve the masses to such an extent cannot stand up against the centralized assaults of the Indian state for decades.

Rather than call me capitalist and whatnot, respond to my "dead-wrong" analysis with arguments why you consider it wrong. So here is my position:

1) It is unrealistic to expect a victory of 60,000 armed personnel over 4,000,000 armed personnel.

I replied to this earlier in this post. The Maoist army will be far larger by the time it fully overthrows the Indian state.

2) It is unrealistic to expect proletarian emancipation without constructing workers' power, dare I say impossible.

As I claimed earlier, those are already present wherever the Maoists have considerable influence.

3) Even ignoring this, the Naxalites advocate New Democracy, a class collaborationist and capitalist system, so their victory would be meaningless for socialism -- again, the same as with Nepal.

I remember in the last thread, there was an Al-Jazeera 'documentary' in which a former Maoist (though still communist) and negotiator says "If you do not wage class struggle, you'll end up with terrorrism." Which is exactly my criticism as well. Class struggle involves creating workers' power, which, ostensibly, the Naxalites do not do.

Please explain why these positions are wrong, and how they are capitalist propaganda.

The New Deomcratic Revolution consists of a bloc of four classes, the core of which are the two working classes; the proletariat and sections of the peasantry. The petty bourgeoisie or middle class is the third revolutionary class, and the left wing of the national bourgeoisie provides vacillating alliance. The participation of the national bourgeoisie is determined by its historical position on anti-imperialist struggles, and its need in industrialization. The degree of regulation or the stage in which the national bourgeoisie is to be excluded from the revolution, is a matter of debate. But still, New Democracy differs from capitalism in a crucial political point; that it is not the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by its definition. Of course, we know that this is the point that many shades of revisionists use again and again to attack Maoism, though their own groups have never engaged in revolutionary struggles anywhere and their defence of revisionism is even more pathetic than their practical failure.

[Tim Cornelis]

Note: I just start writing responding to each claim. It may be that I criticise one point while you have actually already addressed it further below in your comment.

New democracy is not capitalism. Capitalism requires the bourgeoisie in power. The New Democratic Revolution has the working classes at its core.

Nonsense. Capitalism is a mode of production. Any system where the bourgeoisie exists, implies a capitalist mode of production. The Labour Parties also had the working class at its core, but this in itself does not prove it is not capitalistic.

Bourgeois view of revolutionary war always predicts defeat.

I don't see how or why "bourgeois view" would do say, it could very well realistically evaluate the odds of a communist or far-left group winning.

Your analysis considers the strength of the Maoist fighting force as a constant, which is against the Marxist notion of struggle itself strengthening the revolutionaries. The Maoist force was nothing when it started. Then it grew to several hundreds, and thousands. It will be several lakhs by the time the Maoist Revolution achieves nationwide victory.

Well indeed I did not consider it would grow (which is simply an obvious mistake, it has nothing to do with 'Marxist' analysis).

Your claims about increasing brutishness and diminishing support.

The prediction of defeat.

It does, throughout.

You ignore the expansion of the revolution and predict defeat in almost a fictional manner, when you assume that the current number of Maoist fighters is not enough to defeat the government. This is too stupid a mistake for someone who really wants a revolution to succeed.

Saying it is stupid is not a substitute for an argument. Sources suggest the areas in which the Naxalites are active has diminished. For example, sourced claims on wikipedia state:

“In 2009, Naxalites were active across approximately 180 districts in ten states of India.[10] In August 2010, after the first full year of implementation of the national IAP program, Karnataka was removed from the list of naxal affected states.[11] In July 2011, the number of Naxal affected areas was reduced to (figure includes proposed addition of 20 districts) 83 districts across nine states.[12][13][14] In December 2011, the national government reported that the number of Naxalite related deaths and injuries nationwide had gone down by nearly 50% from 2010 levels.[15]”

I have mentioned many times before the Janathana Sirkars, People's Revolutionary Committees, People's Militia etc. The People's Courts that are held by these organizations of workers' power are well known even in the bourgeois media.

Yes, I already mentioned the people's courts. They are only in a limited sense organs of workers' power, their scope is limited. Are there decision-making bodies of workers and peasants?
Janathana Sirkars gives 5 results to vague blogs, googling People's Revolutionary Committees + Naxalites gives no source mentioning them, a People's Milita is military and is not what I'm looking for (obviously I know the Naxalites have armed power).

I only coincidentally found something interesting. Googling People's Committee and Naxalites brought up the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities (PCAPA), I assumed it was not a Naxalite organisation but decided to google it anyway. Which resulted in: Operation Lalgarh.

“Grassroots Democracy
The movement had no conventional leadership and often entire village population sat together and discussed for hours as to the steps to be taken in the movement[citation needed]. Men, women, youth, students all took part in these grand meetings. The traditional leaders were not stripped of the respect that they usually received but were given no more weight than anyone else at the meetings[citation needed]. A forum was thus launched which had no conventional political color and which united the entire adivasi society for a common cause after a long time. It gained immense popularity and most mainstream parties and their mass bases vanished altogether.
Village committees [edit]

Each Village formed a committee of 10 representatives who would with committees of other villages to communicate the decision of the masses of one village to another. Each committee further had two persons who had to be available at all times in case of urgent meetings at short notices[citation needed].”

Which sounds interesting and promising. However, it does not appear to be a permanent movement. Moreover, though the Maoists supported this, it does not appear the movement or operation itself was Maoist (as is also mentioned on the wiki-page itself). Additionally, it does not give any source for the claims of village committees and democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lalgarh

Now I'd be interested in knowing if village committees and popular assemblies have been organised by the Naxalites.

The Zapatistas have practically no fighting force left and don't wage war against the government anymore. They can open up their territories as much as they like and gain popularity for their pacifism

That was not the point, my point was information about its governing structure is readily available. Also, I believe fighting should not be initiated in advance of the existence of bodies of workers' power.

[QUOTE=ind_com;2619692]. The CPI(Maoist) is the largest revolutionary group in the world today, and hence not many authors or journalists dare to involve themselves with it. There is no detailed report about the Maoist organs of people's power. What I said about the People's Court is that the mainstream media describes every decision-making gathering of the organs of people's power as a People's Court, which is inaccurate. Here are some more reports about the Janathana Sirkar, which again, are not detailed.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ou...-------/2488/1

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/1LnN...ml?facet=print

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/inves...ide-the-forestThose are useful links. I'm still not clear on how the Janatana Sarkar functions, is it elected, accountable? The last article mentions the number of families in the Mettagaon (village) council to be 153. Which does suggests direct participation. Then the question is how much decision-making power does such a council have and what is the business they conduct.

“"Maoists normally form party units first, then the military, then the mass organisation. Finally, when they are confident about the security of villagers they form a JS,"”

A bit off topic, I would form party unit first, then mass organisation, then a 'JS', and then defend it through forming military units.

The Maoist dominated PCAPA and CMAS are two good examples of mass organizations that exercised people's power. The PCAPA has been torn down and liquidated, but both of these organizations have involved themselves in local governance, land distribution etc. There is a good article by Arundhati Roy called 'Walking with the Comrades', where she mentions that a Maoist mass-front in Bastar alone has over 90,000 members. It should be understood that a movement that cannot mobilize and involve the masses to such an extent cannot stand up against the centralized assaults of the Indian state for decades.

Yes, the village committees and democracy mentioned on the wiki-article sounds good. My question would be, to what extent to the Naxalites support such a system, do they view it as a germ of the future society? This question is probably too in-depth to find a reliable source on though.

I replied to this earlier in this post. The Maoist army will be far larger by the time it fully overthrows the Indian state.

Well two issues here, they have to be much larger in order to overthrow it, and second IF they overthrow it. Of which I'm not confident at all.

The New Deomcratic Revolution consists of a bloc of four classes, the core of which are the two working classes; the proletariat and sections of the peasantry. The petty bourgeoisie or middle class is the third revolutionary class, and the left wing of the national bourgeoisie provides vacillating alliance. The participation of the national bourgeoisie is determined by its historical position on anti-imperialist struggles, and its need in industrialization. The degree of regulation or the stage in which the national bourgeoisie is to be excluded from the revolution, is a matter of debate. But still, New Democracy differs from capitalism in a crucial political point; that it is not the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by its definition. Of course, we know that this is the point that many shades of revisionists use again and again to attack Maoism, though their own groups have never engaged in revolutionary struggles anywhere and their defence of revisionism is even more pathetic than their practical failure.

You're mixing up the superstructure and mode of production. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is superstructure, capitalism is mode of production. Even if there is no dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there is still capitalism. The haute bourgeoisie is not need in industrialisation, such can be achieved by the workers.
That last sentence was a tu quoque fallacy.

In conclusion, I disagree with the New Democracy, I disagree with the people's war and would use military force only after workers' power and not vice versa, I support village committees and workers' power, insofar it can be called that. But as long as the Maoists continue to advocate class collaboration it is difficult to speak of workers' power, and difficult for me to extend even my critical support. Additionally, many sources confirm their brutish and coercive tactics which I cannot support. I still do not think the Naxalites (remember, irrespective of ideological convictions) have the means to overthrow the Indian government now, and don't expect that to change tomorrow.

[Akshay!]

ind_com, your knowledge about this whole movement is pretty amazing. Is there any specific book or website, etc.. that you'd recommend for someone who wants to know more about the Naxalites? I've read Arundhati Roy's article (and seen some videos also). It's great but I want a more in-depth historical analysis of the struggle (more recent would be preferable..) Thanks.

And to those who've not yet read all the posts in the thread, here's an advice: skip everything that Tim Cornelis wrote. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Every single post clearly demonstrates that fact.

[Per Levy]

And to those who've not yet read all the posts in the thread, here's an advice: skip everything that Tim Cornelis wrote. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Every single post clearly demonstrates that fact.

yeah, skip the guy who engages in a discussion, looks for sources and actually challenges you to think about the situation instead only read the guy who throws around maoist slogans and phrases and is overly optimistic of the situation to say at least.

[redfist.]

I have a slightly related question: Where can I find information on the insurgency from the perspective of the revolutionaries. Every source I've found on the subject seems completely lopsided to the perspective of the Indian government. Can anyone help me out. A neutral perspective works too, and is probably preferred too.