Do you agree with the goals of the Naxals?

[Comrade Jacob]

rage...

[G4b3n]

I never agree with Maoist notions of revolution.
However, given the material conditions that exist around these movements it is understandable, sometimes people need something tangible right away, not just education and abstract seminars.

[Sea]

And what would those goals be exactly?

[Khalid]

Hell yes. Everyone should pay attention to Indian revolution.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Isn't their ultimate goal communism..?

[Art Vandelay]

The stated goals of the Naxals, as far as I'm aware and as far as one can find a cohesive statement of goals in that far from homogeneous movement, is the development of a communist society. In which case every single person here would be in agreement with their goals. Now whether or not you think their tactics will be sucessful is another matter.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Isn't one of their immediate goals resolving the "agrarian question"?

I know one of the main questions behind many revolutionary movements in the developing world revolves around the issues of land and land reform, etc

[Brutus]

The working class gains power by organising and seizing the modes of production, not by guerrillas in the jungle overthrowing the current government. I am presuming that one of their aims is new democracy and a Maoist society, so I do not agree with their aims.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Isn't one of their immediate goals resolving the "agrarian question"?

I know one of the main questions behind many revolutionary movements in the developing world revolves around the issues of land and land reform, etc

This is a question of a Minume-Maximum programme. It would be foolish to judge the Manifesto by the ten planks

The working class gains power by organising and seizing the modes of production, not by guerrillas in the jungle overthrowing the current government. I am presuming that one of their aims is new democracy and a Maoist society, so I do not agree with their aims.

The conquest of political power by the working class is the question of what is feasible within the Indian context. Multiple Communist commentatires within and without India have commented on the in feasibility of general insurrection. Lenin himself commented that class struggle is not defined by tactics but by strategic aims, and that guerilla warfare is a feasible and valid method for the conquest of power. Indeed Lenin thought that it was childish to reject military tactics simply for the sake of sloganeering. To quote Lenin himself:

Let us begin from the beginning. What are the fundamental demands which every Marxist should make of an examination of the question of forms of struggle? In the first place, Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle. It recognises the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not “concoct” them, but only generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of themselves in the course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to all abstract formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which, as the movement develops, as the class-consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defence and attack. Marxism, therefore, positively does not reject any form of struggle. Under no circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the given moment only, recognising as it does that new forms of struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period, inevitably arise as the given social situation, changes. In this respect Marxism learns, if we may so express it, from mass practice, and makes no claim what ever to teach the masses forms of struggle invented by “systematisers” in the seclusion of their studies. We know—said Kautsky, for instance, when examining the forms of social revolution—that the coming crisis will introduce new forms of struggle that we are now unable to foresee.

Lenin, On Guerrilla Warfare

Lenin's work On Guerrilla Warfare is a good introduction to Lenin's reflections on the proper use of the tactic, and how the social democrats and the working class used it in Russia. I think it is useful because it reveals a side of Lenin that you will not read about in your average "leninist" rag. Presumably because it is to boring, and because it would be incompatible with the obsession with legalism, electioneering, meaningless slogans, newspapers and the general opportunism that categorizes "leninism" today.

[blake 3:17]

Comrade Sukhdev asks if he can download the music from my Ipod onto his computer. We listen to a recording of Iqbal Bano singing Faiz Ahmad Faiz’s Hum Dekhenge (We will Witness the Day) at the famous concert in Lahore at the height of the repression during the Zia-ul-Haq years.

Jab ahl-e-safa-Mardud-e-haram,
Masnad pe bithaiye jayenge

(When the heretics and the reviled will be seated on high)

Sab taaj uchhale jayenge
Sab takht giraye jayenge

(All crowns will be snatched away
All thrones toppled)

Hum dekhenge

Fifty thousand people in the audience in that Pakistan begin a defiant chant: Inqilab Zindabad! Inqilab Zindabad! All these years later, that chant reverberates around this forest. Strange, the alliances that get made.

The home minister’s been issuing veiled threats to those who “erroneously offer intellectual and material support to Maoists”. Does sharing music qualify?

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264738-0

[Popular Front of Judea]

Can anyone explain to me what is specifically Marxist about this movement?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Although I support them in spirit.....honestly, the Shining Path has made me highly suspicious, perhaps unjustifiably, of peasant uprisings in general.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Although I support them in spirit.....honestly, the Shining Path has made me highly suspicious, perhaps unjustifiably, of peasant uprisings in general.

1)They've called multiple general strikes successfully and have extensive union branches. They do work with proles, its just that most of it is propoganda and legal work. Again insurectionism is not palpable in the Indian context so the country side is really the only place where armed struggle can begin.

2)They've denounced the line of the Shining Path on numerous questions, such as on the rejection of the cult of personality (I think they have collective political leadership and one general who just does opperational stuff, I don't even know his name and I've been following them for a year now and yet saw only one article about their military leader. Just an elderly university teacher from what I remember who is a bit of a hermit and is a bit shy.) and disagreements on various other questions, the CP(Maoist)A which follows their political line, even went as far as to label Gonzalo thought a deviation in the same spirit as Prachanda Path. So no they aren't the best of buds

[Gimbell]

I never agree with Maoist notions of revolution.
However, given the material conditions that exists around these movements it is understandable, sometimes people need something tangible right away, not just education and abstract seminars.

Without knowing too much about them ( I just did a cursory search ) this tends to sum up my thoughts . Unfortunately short term gratification vs long term planning is often hard to convince people of the later's necessity.

[Omsk]

Presumably because it is to boring, and because it would be incompatible with the obsession with legalism, electioneering, meaningless slogans, newspapers and the general opportunism that categorizes "leninism" today.

While i agree that the various "leninist" sectarian groups have an obsession with electioneering, slogans and newspaper, and have no real connection with the working masses and the oppressed, you must keep in mind that sometimes, in the times of extreme repression, legalism should not be avoided. Many times in history, a revolutionary party had to establish a legal wing in order to communicate with the masses better, these legal wings were not self-sufficient, but they were useful. And after they served their purpose, they are no longer necessary.

[Le Socialiste]

The Naxalites are seen by many within the ranks of the peasantry as the only serious, viable means of resistance against state-led violence and institutionalized exploitation. This isn't necessarily a false perception on their part; in many instances, the Naxals have been responsible for the defense and protection of those who work or reside in the countryside. Thus it is natural for the Indian peasantry (and, in some specific cases, the working-class) to view the Naxalites as its primary defense against the onslaught of both private interests that rob them of their traditional livelihoods, and state-sanctioned violence. So the question of why ordinary people support them isn't much of a question at all.

What we should be asking is whether the present course is enough to overturn capitalist social relations and all subsequent means of operation. I would argue no, it isn't. This comes down to a variety of competing factors, not to mention the existing balance of forces pervading much of the country. But the Maoists, despite their integral role in the defense and education of those who reside in the countryside, also pose a challenge of their own. In essence, in comes down to the fact that the Naxalites play an extremely contradictory role in this fight, one that we as Marxists should - and do - take note of.

Take the example of Lalgarh in West Bengal. In 2008, Maoists failed in bombing the car of the chief minister of West Bengal as he was traveling to inaugurate a SEZ steel plant. The state government, as a consequence of the Maosts' actions, ordered night raids on all adjoining villages, prompting a massive uprising of the people. (Night raids on tribal villages is and has been common practice since colonial times.)

The Santhals, Mundas, and Mahatos opted towards a united response against the obscene level of state repression, joining with other radical forces and elements to form a cohesive front as a means to combat and resist the attacks. The movement grew so rapidly and was so popular that the police were forced to abandon all eight of their camps based in the affected areas. What followed was nothing short of a tragedy. After several leaders of the movement began arguing for intervention in local elections the Maoists had one of them killed and branded as a 'revisionist class enemy'. Tithi Bhattacharya, who wrote a recent article on Maoism in the global South, noted the ensuing reaction on the part of the Maoists against participants in the movement:

After this they systematically banned all mass organizations and demobilized all mass action at gunpoint. Armed Maoist squads ruled the villages for six months until the state government, looking for precisely this opportunity, called in federal forces and routed the Maoists. Now Lalgarh is a celebration of capitalist triumph as the SEZ plant is declared to be a great model for “development” in Lalgarh.

I think this highlights some of the reasons why, despite the large role of the Naxals in the wider movement against neoliberalism, Maoism is incapable of outlining a clear line out of the crisis - or, at least one that seeks to upend the existing order through independent, mass-based resistance built from the ground up (and I do think that, at least in part and at some point, the two are to become mutually exclusive). What we must ultimately look to is the number of organizations of workers who are presently struggling with the question of how best to move forward under these conditions, and can offer insights into the millions of people who understandably oppose the effects and consequences of neoliberal development and austerity on their livelihoods and wellbeing.

Of note also is the rising level of militancy and fightback underway amongst broad layers of the Indian working-class. We often hear of bosses captured or murdered, or of factories burned to the ground as retribution for the atrocious working conditions and obscene levels of exploitation experienced by Indian laborers, but we may also point to the millions-strong general strike action of last year that brought waves of workers into the streets - making it the largest such action since independence. It is in these nascent and existent tides of struggle presently underway amongst swathes of the Indian proletariat that we must look to and argue for, as they possess the only true means of disrupting (and eventually overturning) the interests that use and exploit them.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

While i agree that the various "leninist" sectarian groups have an obsession with electioneering, slogans and newspaper, and have no real connection with the working masses and the oppressed, you must keep in mind that sometimes, in the times of extreme repression, legalism should not be avoided. Many times in history, a revolutionary party had to establish a legal wing in order to communicate with the masses better, these legal wings were not self-sufficient, but they were useful. And after they served their purpose, they are no longer necessary.

This is the fundamentally correct view, however if a basis for illegal activities is not present than neither is the basis for revolutionary politics. The International Socialist Organization, is registered as a legal organization under the 501 tax code. That is to say, that they have handed over knowledge of their activities and finances to the state. Hence they will never be a revolutionary organization. And this is not because they are bad people or revisionists, but it is simply for the same reason that a penguin can not fly.

[Sheepy]

Well, as long as they don't pull a Prachanda and keep their word, I'll continue to pay attention to their struggle, though I won't be holding my breath.

[blake 3:17]

Can anyone explain to me what is specifically Marxist about this movement?

What makes a movement Marxist?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Let me put it this way what about this primarily peasant movement/rebellion is of interest to a Marxist? As versus say this: Strike closes world's top copper mine

What makes a movement Marxist?