Results 1 to 20 of 20
Thailand: CWI’s Disgraceful Support for the Bosses’ “Yellow Shirts”
thecommunists.net/ worldwide/asia/cwi-on-thailand/
"The right-centrist “Committee for a Workers International” (CWI) has recently published an article in which it expresses its support for the arch-reactionary demonstrations of the so-called “Yellow Shirts” in Thailand. (1) The CWI in Belgium wrote in an article: “The world-wide crisis has hit Thailand and sharpens the already existing contradictions. The cooling of the Chinese economy equally had consequences for Thailand. This led to a deterioration of the economic situation in the country. In particular the urban population which is dependent of the industry has been hit. Combined with the continuing corruption of the regime there are many reasons to protest. It would be therefore wrong to view the protests as a maneuver of the ‘Democrat Party’. The ‘Democrat Party’ certainly has joined the protests with strong forces. But the leaders of the protests have no intention to bring the urban elite and the military back to power. We rather see a rejection of the existing ‘gangster-capitalism’ which is in power and of which Thaksin is the most important symbol.”
Not only is the above statement wrong, but it leads the CWI directly into the camp of open counter-revolution. As we have shown in our resolution on Thailand in early December 2013, there is no doubt about the bourgeois, capitalist character of the current government of Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of the deposed and exiled former Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. However the current protests are not in any way a protest “against gangster-capitalism.” Rather, they are an attempt by the neo-liberal opposition “Democrat Party,” the political expression of the urban elite and the army command, to provoke a military coup d’état.
In addition, the protests are not in any way spontaneous, but have from the start been initiated, led, and controlled by the leaders of the “Democrat Party”.
These reactionaries hate the government of Yingluck Shinawatra and her brother, Thaksin, because they are not sufficiently neo-liberal and because they have made limited social concessions to the urban poor and peasants. This is precisely why the “Democrat Party” has lost every election in the past 12 years while the pro-Thaksin forces have been victorious. Only by means of a military coup in 2006, has the dominant faction of the ruling class and their “Democrat Party” succeeded in bringing down Thaksin.
Having been consistently defeated in general elections, the “Democrat Party” is now trying to prevent the upcoming early elections scheduled to be held in Thailand on February 2nd. Their calculation is to provoke so much political instability that the military will stage yet another coup (as the army command has already done 18 times in the past eight decades!), thereby preventing the elections from being held, all for the sake of securing “law and order.”
During the past 12 years, the masses have proven, both in elections as well as in repeated mass mobilizations and bloody street battles, that they are determined to defeat the reactionary “Yellow Shirts.”
In its recently published resolution on Thailand, the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT) has summarized the consequences of the present situation: “Thailand’s main opposition force, the misnamed Democrat Party, is organizing reactionary demonstrations aimed at overthrowing the government. These so-called “Yellow Shirts” are stirring up an atmosphere which could lead to another military coup d’état. The RCIT considers these demonstrations as a reactionary maneuver by the traditional political elite of Thailand. The working class and the poor peasants must organize mass counter-mobilizations without giving any political support and confidence in the government of Yingluck Shinawatra. To overcome the social and political misery, the working class must build an independent workers party based on a revolutionary program which leads the popular masses towards social revolution.” (2)
Naturally, the pro-Thaksin Pheu Thai Party is in itself also an enemy of both the working class and the poor peasantry. But in order to break the workers and poor away from these bourgeois forces, socialists have to identify the main enemy in the current situation – the wealthy bourgeoisie, the army command, and their lackeys in the “Democrat Party.” Only by taking such an approach are socialists capable of adopting a correct stand in the present conflict:
“As we have said, the main problem is the political subordination of the workers and peasants in the “Red Shirts” movement to Thaksin’s leadership. At the moment, a central challenge is to fight against the ambitions of the reactionary army command, the “Yellow Shirts,” the King, etc., to smash the limited democratic achievements and launch another coup d’état. Such a struggle necessitates the mass mobilization and militant organizing of the workers and peasants who have been demobilized by the bourgeois Yingluck government, since the latter is hoping for another compromise with the army command. Such a struggle will include temporary blocs and united front actions with the “Red Shirts” movement, and even with those in the bourgeois-populist Pheu Thai Party who are willing to mobilize on the streets against the coup d’état. The goal must be to split the working class away from the Thaksin leadership and to organize them in an independent workers’ party. The RCIT believes that such a party must raise the program of permanent revolution, i.e., the intermeshing of the democratic and socialist revolutions, which will lead to an armed uprising of the workers and poor peasants in order to overthrow capitalism and build a workers’ and peasants’ republic.”
The CWI, which notoriously lacks any understanding of authentic Marxism and which consistently adapts to reformism, has failed once again to take the right side in an ongoing class conflict centered on an important democratic issue. Seeing how this has occurred so many times in past, it is hardly by accident. To provide only a few previous examples, we cite the CWI’s refusal to support and defend: the nationalist Irish in Northern Ireland against the British state and their loyalist lackeys; the black and migrant peoples in the August Uprising against the police in Britain in 2011; the Afghan and Iraqi resistance against US/UK imperialism; and the Palestinians in Gaza against Israel. (3)
Once again, the CWI’s position regarding the situation in Thailand illustrates how, without any revolutionary program, theory, and practice, a self-proclaimed “Trotskyist” organization is doomed to fail in providing the working class authentic revolutionary leadership, and instead runs into the danger of joining the counter-revolutionary camp. The RCIT is fully aware that there are many serious and dedicated class fighters in the ranks of the CWI. We call upon them to break with this organization which has crossed the class lines so many times."
Footnotes:
(1) In German: Thailand: Proteste beginnen von Neuem, CWI Belgium, 13.01.2014, in Dutch: Straatprotest in Thailand: terug van niet lang weg geweest, 5.12.2013, We translate from the German version.
(2) RCIT: Thailand: Defeat the looming reactionary Coup D’état! Mobilize the Working Class and Poor Peasants as an independent force against the “Yellow Shirts”, Army Command and Monarchy! 4.12.2013,
(3) See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: The Great Robbery of the South. Continuity and Changes in the Super-Exploitation of the Semi-Colonial World by Monopoly Capital. Consequences for the Marxist Theory of Imperialism, Chapter 13.
I don't know the details, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I agree with the article (especially emphasising an independent movement, though this is unrealistic) except for these things:
"The right-centrist “Committee for a Workers International” (CWI)
Is it seriously suggested that they are right-wing?
the CWI’s refusal to support and defend: the nationalist Irish in Northern Ireland against the British state and their loyalist lackeys; the black and migrant peoples in the August Uprising against the police in Britain in 2011; the Afghan and Iraqi resistance against US/UK imperialism; and the Palestinians in Gaza against Israel. (3)
What does that mean? Supporting the Taliban and and Al-Qaida in fighting the US and UK?
pew pew pew
>"What does that mean? Supporting the Taliban and and Al-Qaida in fighting the US and UK?"
It's the classic Trotskyist position, supporting the military struggle without giving political support to capitalist/islamists groups. In a war between an Imperialist Nation and local group(even be it fascist or religious), we should give militarlty support, but not an inch of political support.
Google:Leon Trotsky "Learn to Think". He's defending "fascist" Brazil over "democratic" Braitain. Anti-imperialism comes before anti-fascism or anti-religious coherison. (But we need to fight both). In fact, only the defeat of the US in Afganistan could open the door for the Afgani people to overthrow the Taliban.
here is some outline of the political situation
1. Thailand’s main opposition force, the misnamed Democrat Party, is organizing reactionary demonstrations aimed at overthrowing the government. These so-called “Yellow Shirts” are stirring up an atmosphere which could lead to another military coup d’état. The Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT) considers these demonstrations as a reactionary maneuver by the traditional political elite of Thailand. The working class and the poor peasants must organize mass counter-mobilizations without giving any political support and confidence in the government of Yingluck Shinawatra. To overcome the social and political misery, the working class must build an independent workers party based on a revolutionary program which leads the popular masses towards social revolution.
2. Since mid-November, the “Yellow Shirts,” led by former deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban, have organized demonstrations and tried to storm government buildings. The Democrat Party is the traditional representative of the reactionary political elite which is composed of the army command, the upper echelons of the state bureaucracy, the majority of Thai’s big business and – as their figurehead – King Bhumibol. It is a neoliberal, royalist, big business party which has its main support base amongst the urban middle class of Bangkok. While it has participated in the government many times, it has usually gained this position via the regularly occuring coup d’état’s and interference from the military, and has never won a parliamentary election.
3. The reactionary demonstrations of the “Yellow Shirts” have the obvious tacit approval of the army command and the king. This is why the police and army offer only lukewarm resistance against the attempts of the “Yellow Shirts” to storm government buildings.
4. What triggered the current escalation by the “Yellow Shirts” were two bills initiated by the Yingluck government. The first was an amendment to the constitution which was imposed by the army command in 2007. It would have allowed that all senators be elected while, under the military constitution, half of them are appointed. However, while the bill was adopted by a majority in parliament, the military-appointed Constitutional Court ruled that parliament could not amend the constitution! Revolutionary communists are consistent democrats; therefore we recognize the importance of issues concerning democracy, and consider a senate elected in bourgeois-democratic elections more democratic than a senate which is half-appointed by the political elite.
5. The second bill introduced by the Yingluck government is an amnesty bill. In itself, this bill included disastrous concessions to the old elite. It offered amnesty not only to convicted activists of the popular protest movement as well as the deposed and exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra (brother of the current prime minister), but also to the army command and Democrat Party leaders Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban. The latter were responsible for the military coup d’état in 2006, as well as the massacre against the “Red Shirts” protests in 2010. Hence the bill was justifiably opposed by the militant sectors of the “Red Shirts” who have the support of the urban working class as well as the rural poor peasantry. However, the traditional elite were enraged by the possibility of the return of the exiled former Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. Albeit the Yingluck government withdrew the bill after wide protests, the reactionary “Yellow Shirts” movement attempts to utilize the political crisis in order to finish off the government and to reconstitute a government which is closely controlled by the army command and the majority faction of big business.
6. If the Democrat Party and the “Yellow Shirts” succeed in their attempts to overthrow the government, this will strengthen the grip of the traditional elite on political life, reduce democratic rights, and encourage an intensification of the attacks against the working class and the poor peasantry. This is why it is urgent to mobilize the working class and the poor peasants for the defeat of the reactionary “Yellow Shirts.” Such an independent mass mobilization would create favorable conditions to break both workers and peasants away from the bourgeois leadership of the Thaksin and Yingluck Shinawatra and their bourgeois populist Pheu Thai Party and to fight against their government.
7. However the decisive problem currently is the continuing political subordination of the working class and the poor peasants under the Thaksin leadership. Thaksin is a multi-millionaire and wants to build a “modern” capitalist Thailand. The Pheu Thai Party leadership has no intention to abolish the monarchy or to substantially cut down the powerful position of the army command, the military-imposed constitutional court, etc., not to speak of implementing any meaningful social reforms. In fact its whole policy in the past years has demonstrated that it is willing to compromise with the traditional elite, and it attempts to demobilize its workers and peasants supporters as much as possible. Thus the Pheu Thai Party is a bourgeois-populist party which represents a minority faction of the capitalist class but which, however, has to rely on the support of the workers and peasants in order to hold power.
8. Nevertheless Thaksin and his party are despised by the elite because it is a party whose strength is based on the support of the masses of workers and peasants who have repeatedly intervened in the political life of Thailand during the last decade by militant mass mobilizations. Thaksin’s party (initially called Thai Rak Thai party) won the majority of votes in the 2001 elections, as the first party outside the traditional establishment. Thaksin achieved this by promising social and democratic reforms for which he could rally mass support amongst the working class and the poor peasantry. With this support base, he was reelected in 2005. However, after the Democratic Party failed to drive him out by parliamentary elections, the military staged a coup d’état in 2006 and deposed Thaksin. The army command banned his party and Thaksin was forced into exile. After this, the army command imposed an extraordinarily undemocratic constitution. Nevertheless, the next elections, held in December 2007, were won by the Phak Palang Prachachon (People's Power Party) which, in fact, acted as the reincarnation of Thaksin’s banned party. This, however, did not prevent the army command from deposing the PPP government a few months later, and banning the party. It was only through such blatant interference of the military that the Democratic (!) Party could reenter the government. This provoked a new series of militant mass protests in March-May 2010, when hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants occupied parts of Bangkok, and heroically fought off the army and police. The army sent in its soldiers, backed by armored personnel carriers, and fired at the protestors with live ammunition. Altogether, during these weeks, at least 85 people were killed and 1,378 wounded. When the reactionary government was forced to hold general election on July 3, 2011, again the Pheu Thai Party, led by Yingluck Shinawatra (Thaksin’s sister), won an outright majority. This short overview demonstrates that the current mobilizations of the “Yellow Shirts” are a continuation of the repeated attempts of the old establishment to prevent any government which is not under its complete control.
9. As we have said, the main problem is the political subordination of the workers and peasants in the “Red Shirts” movement to Thaksin’s leadership. At the moment, a central challenge is to fight against the ambitions of the reactionary army command, the “Yellow Shirts,”the King, etc., to smash the limited democratic achievements and launch another coup d’état. Such a struggle necessitates the mass mobilization and militant organizing of the workers and peasants who have been demobilized by the bourgeois Yingluck government, since the latter is hoping for another compromise with the army command. Such a struggle will include temporary blocs and united front actions with the “Red Shirts” movement, and even with those in the bourgeois-populist Pheu Thai Party who are willing to mobilize on the streets against the coup d’état.
10. The goal must be to split the working class away from the Thaksin leadership and to organize them in an independent workers’ party. The RCIT believes that such a party must raise the program of permanent revolution, i.e., the intermeshing of the democratic and socialist revolutions, which will lead to an armed uprising of the workers and poor peasants in order to overthrow capitalism and build a workers’ and peasants’ republic.
11. Such a program must include the struggle for a democratic revolution. An important part of this will be the abolishment of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic, as well as a struggle against the powerful position of the army command and its constitutional court. It should also unconditionally support the right of national self-determination for the Muslim people of Patani (the three southernmost provinces of the country which the Thai state created after it destroyed the Patani sultanate.) The majority of the populations in these provinces are Malay Muslims, with their own language and culture, and who are fighting against the central Thai state.
12. Against the reactionary constitution and the permanently-rigged process of writing and amending the constitution, authentic socialists have to fight for a Revolutionary Constitutional Assembly. Such an assembly must not be controlled by the reactionary ruling class. It must be the outcome of a mass uprising. It must be controlled by armed mass organizations of the workers and peasants, and its delegates must be controlled and recallable by their voters. The assembly’s only purpose would be to draw up a new constitution. In such an assembly, Socialists have to argue for the program of a workers and peasants republic.
13. A revolutionary program also has to include the expropriation of big business and the nationalization of the banks, as well as place the large industrial and service enterprises under workers’ control. It also must nationalize the media under workers’ control. Such a revolutionary workers’ party could rally the poor peasants for a program that expropriates the big landowners and foments an agrarian revolution. However, in doing so, it must patiently explain to the workers and poor peasants that sustainable democratic reform and social improvement can only be achieved if the working class takes power and creates a government of workers and poor peasants, based on councils and popular militias of armed masses. Its purpose must be to build the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would suppress the old ruling class and ensure freedom for the popular masses.
14. Such a revolutionary workers party must be built from the beginning, in conjunction with the efforts to create a new World Party of Socialist Revolution which, in our opinion, will be the Fifth Workers’ International. The RCIT looks forward to discussing these matters and collaborating with revolutionaries in Thailand and Asia, in order to advance the formation of such a revolutionary organization.
The German translation differs from the Dutch on several occasions. So is the English translation derived from the German.
The Engish translation (posted above):
A new translation from the article in Dutch. (As can be viewed today. It, however, was published on December 5 2013)
The German text, indeed, mentions "the leaders [of the protests]" (WortführerInnen). The Dutch text, however, doesn't.
“Where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards, where he believes in authority, in those set over him, the main thing is to teach him to walk by himself.” - Marx
"It is illogical and incorrect to reduce everything to the economic [socialist] revolution, for the question is: how to eliminate [political] oppression? It cannot be eliminated without an economic revolution... But to limit ourselves to this is to lapse into absurd and wretched ... Economism." - Lenin
"[During a revolution, bourgeois democratic] demands [of the working class] ... push so hard on the outer limits of capital's rule that they appear likewise as forms of transition to a proletarian dictatorship." - Luxemburg
“Well, then go forward, Tower of Bebel! [August] Bebel is one of the most brilliant representatives of scientific international socialism. His writings, speeches and works make up a great tower, a strong arsenal, from which the working class should take their weapons. We cannot recommend it enough… And if the [International] deserves to be named Tower of Bebel... well, then we are lucky to have such a Tower of Bebel with us.” - Vooruit
It's not such a huge difference. Because the "leaders of the protests" want the same thing as the protesters...
Anyway, the CWI is wrong here-the protests have started from Day 1 by the "Democratic" Party, and are not in rejection of capitalism, on the contrary-they think there hasn't been enough neoliberalism and want to rollback the democratic gains(such as an electable parliament).
FYI, Wortführer = spokesman or leader
“Where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards, where he believes in authority, in those set over him, the main thing is to teach him to walk by himself.” - Marx
"It is illogical and incorrect to reduce everything to the economic [socialist] revolution, for the question is: how to eliminate [political] oppression? It cannot be eliminated without an economic revolution... But to limit ourselves to this is to lapse into absurd and wretched ... Economism." - Lenin
"[During a revolution, bourgeois democratic] demands [of the working class] ... push so hard on the outer limits of capital's rule that they appear likewise as forms of transition to a proletarian dictatorship." - Luxemburg
“Well, then go forward, Tower of Bebel! [August] Bebel is one of the most brilliant representatives of scientific international socialism. His writings, speeches and works make up a great tower, a strong arsenal, from which the working class should take their weapons. We cannot recommend it enough… And if the [International] deserves to be named Tower of Bebel... well, then we are lucky to have such a Tower of Bebel with us.” - Vooruit
the only radical left party that seems to be covering the Thai protests is the SWP's Giles Ji Ungpakorn, and he paints the yellow shirts as middle class ultra reactionaries. So yeah if CWI is supporting these protests it just shows how some trot groups love to tail any popular protests no matter how reactionary.
It doesn't seem to so much be 'support' as a recognition that the protests mark an undercurrent of discontent within the Thai population. That the Democratic Party has latched onto that is beside the point and I don't know enough about the situation to confidently claim whether or not the Democratic Party started the protests or simply took advantage of them. The CWI doesn't support the Democratic Party and would call for workers in Thailand to form their own party to see their demands come to fruition.
Also the bit at the end about not supporting nationalist struggles in Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan... well good. The CWI stands for an international struggle of the working class and not nationalist struggles. We recognise the conditions which lead to conflicts but don't haphazardly put our support for either 'side' in a conflict as we support workers struggles not military engagements. We call for all imperialist forces to withdraw and allow the working class to organise independently from global capital. In regards to what you so augustly name the 'August Uprising', it wasn't just the black and migrant working class who were participating in the riots (in places like Manchester it was predominantly white working class people in fact and in Bristol it was a wide range of people but mainly locals) and, besides the fact, the CWI didn't condemn the rioting but the cuts to services, and the lack of support for communities, that fostered the rioting.
I don't know enough about the situation in Thailand and you seem to know a bit more about the details but the initial article seems to have just been put together in order to make a dig at the CWI from shaky ground, in my opinion. Your post with the outline of the political situation is more illuminating and gives a better level of detail.
Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin
Which is ridiculous. Military support is tantamount to political support as it enables them politically. I will never support fascists or religious fundamentalists.
pew pew pew
This position stems from lenins revolutionary defeatism, at least that's how I figured it. In the United States I support the defeat of the US army, the harbinger of world imperialism, wherever it goes by whoever it fights because it's tantamount to supporting the defeat of imperialism worldwide. In that example, "fascist Brazil" could mean the same as "baathist iraq," seeing as the regime change simply changed the political, not economic superstructure. As a result of this the working class is entirely liquidated, and the country is in a less revolutionary position than it ever was during Saddam. If the US were to lose, the Iraqi working class would be in a position to at least put the question forward of social change. The US would only lose though if the American working class mobilized to end the war, it's part of that "internationalist" outlook.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say that anti-imperialism "comes before" anti-fascism or anti-fundamentalism, as if the latter two are less important. The point is that fascism, religious fundamentalism etc. can only be fought alongside imperialism. The "democratic", "anti-fascist", "secular" imperialist bourgeoisie will not solve the problems of religious fundamentalism or fascism in the regions it draws into its sphere of interest. Just look at "democratic" Afghanistan or "democratic" West Germany.
response
C'mon, discontent among the petty-bourgeois is that their has not been enough neo-liberal reforms. The Yellow Shirts are reactionaries.
Make no mistake, so too is the current Prime minister, but that does mean we should support the yellow shirts. The main enemy is the yellow shirts, who have the support of big business(why else do you think they have lost every election in the past 12 years?). the cwi, as shown in it's statement, supports the protesters, even if they are rich scumbags.
You are a social-imperialist in disguise. you don't make a distinction between imperialist and semi-colonial nations. I suggest you read here, its not long.
the-isleague. com /wars/
I would add to the list of insults the cwi's defense of Britain in the 1982 Falkland war, as well as calling Iraq a "regional imperialist power", as well as calling cops "workers in uniform", which is a joke.
thecommunists. net/ theory/great-robbery-summary
oh, and giving platform to the South African gov't representative
thecommunists. net/ worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/cwi-meeting-with-sa-embassy-rep
not really, the cwi has condemned the uprising and wanted to put thing under control. it has sat back and watched from the comfort of their TV's in the cwi annual camp, not 5km away from the main protests. and it was mainly poor and black uprising.
www .thecommunists. net/ theory/britain-left-and-the-uprising/sp-and-committee-for-a-workers-international/
I don't have anything against the CWI, except for not agreeing with its social-imperialists notions. When they are correct, they are correct. and when they are wrong-they need to be pointed out. the cwi is heading towards openly supporting the reactionary yellow shirts.
I agree with you, but this is not relevant, because that's not the point I am making.
I am just saying that in a war between a semi-colony and an imperialist nation, we should militarily support the semi-colonies.
For example, in 1919, lenin sent aid the the Afgani King who was fighting against the British Empire,
Regarding wars(to the other posters who asked),
I should just quote from the article:
A non-imperialist nation engaged in a war against imperialism would be regarded by Marxists in the same manner mentioned above concerning an oppressed national minority, i.e., support for the victory of the oppressed, regardless of the class nature of their leadership, and without supporting any bourgeois or reactionary policies. Once again, the workers who live in the imperialist nation would be called to support the revolutionary defeat of their own bourgeoisie and the victory of the "Third World" nation against it.
Such support would be given even to the most hated ruling characters and regimes. For example, Trotsky had supported the Kuomintang, led by the butcher Chiang Kai-Shek, against the attacks of imperialist Japan:
"In order to arrive at a real national liberation it is necessary to overthrow the Kuomintang. But this does not mean that we postpone the struggle until the time when the Kuomintang is overthrown. The more the struggle against foreign oppression spreads the more difficulties the Kuomintang will have. The more we line up the masses against the Kuomintang the more the struggle against imperialism will develop.
"At the acute moment of Japanese intervention the workers and the students called for arms. From whom? Again from the Kuomintang. It would be a sectarian absurdity to abandon this demand under the protext that we wish to overthrow the Kuonintang. We wish to overthrow it but we have not yet reached that point. The more energetically we demand the arming of the workers the sooner we shall reach it."[6]
Anti-imperialism overshadows even our anti-fascist sentiments. While our anti-fascist strategies and tactics would apply regardless of the imperialist or non-imperialist character of any given country, we would support a non-imperialist country against an imperialist country, even if the former is ruled by fascists.
Trotsky has explicitly expressed this position in an interview with Mateo Fossa in 1938:
"In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!"
As I've said before, I don't know enough about the situation itself to make a comment from a position of any authority but it occurs to me that 'rich scumbags' don't generally go to protests. There is definitely a layer of bourgeois politicians taking advantage of the working class frustration, however. Nowhere does it suggest that the CWI supports bourgeois elements of Thailand exploiting the working class.
I glimpsed through what you posted and it's interesting but I don't really see it contradicting what I posted. In fact, what you're suggesting contradicts the message of the piece you've posted. "So what should the working class do in the event of an impending world war, knowing that the power to stop it lies exclusively in its own hands? The leaders of the international working class party, the Second International, on the eve of the First World War, advised their supporters to support their own bourgeoisie, claiming that the bourgeoisie on the other side of the border were much worse. This is the classic "lesser evil" argument which continues to be the flagship of reformist arguments to this very day. It occurs often in history that following ‘lesser evil’ logic leads to much greater evil." I suggest you should read Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth as it gives a fantastic view of colonised people and anti-colonialism from the perspective of a native and also warns of a native bourgeoisie that seeks to compete with other national bourgeoisie.
Also... might just be me but calling me a 'social-imperialist' makes you sound like a caricature of a stalinist.
I don't know enough about the CWI's position on the Falklands War but, considering just how much Militant hated Thatcher, I'm confident to say that there was little, if any, 'support' for the British state during that debacle. As always, the CWI's position on war would be for the working class to join in solidarity across borders and use their power to put a stop to needless carnage.
Iraq was an imperialist power. It lead an imperialist war against Kuwait to seize resources. Recognising that fact doesn't equate to supporting the other imperialist powers that challenged them.
Also, I don't agree with the CWI's stance on the police. I think it's weak and lacks nuance. Thankfully, the CWI isn't some brainwashing society where every member must strictly adhere to the party line and internal debate is encouraged. Regardless, in reality the CWI has very little to do with the police and its members are regularly involved in campaigns exposing police corruption and highlighting the travesty that is the armed wing of the capitalist state.
It wasn't mainly black working class people. It was working class people of all races. A friend of mine, who's white, got arrested in Bristol for participating in the riots (because the moron didn't mask up properly). It's complete bullshit to take a position of 'rioting won't bring down the state but we completely understand why it happened due to the current wave of police oppression and economic cuts to local communities' and see that as denouncing the riots.
I disagree with your analysis in regards to the CWI, but you're welcome to your opinions. I know nothing I write will convince you otherwise.
Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin
It's disconcerting when reactionary movements manage to co-opt the tactics and imagery of protest movements. It's not that Thaksin or his successors like his sister Yingluck who is PM currently are scions of the working class (to begin with, Thaksin was a business magnate), but it's obvious that what ever they've done has polarized the country and in particular put the old guard at unease. It would be ideal if the masses of the countryside and the marginalized workers in Bangkok could come together, independent of populist scraps thrown out by the current government, but it seems the Cold War in Thailand decimated any semblance of a socialist movement despite the pro-china CP there engaging in a guerrilla war before dissipating in the 90s.
What I'm wondering is where are the supporters of the government in all this? The redshirts as they were called came out in force back in 2011 before this government was elected in but do not have the same energy (or resources) these yellowshirts are getting from their backers.
Hopefully seeing the back and forth between these two camps will lead to some sort of genuine, popular movement emerging from the people, independent of the elites, but it might just end up as apathy and a resigned shrug that there's nothing that can be done.
This attack is bizarre... taking one segment of one sections essay on one subject and then distorting it to say an international movement supports reactionaries.
I say distorting, because what the article says is something like "people may support the Yellow protests as an expression of their hatred of capitalist system in Thailand." That can certainly be the case. For instance, the Nazis drew support from people who consciously or subconsciously were reacting to the disgusting failure of the capitalist system in Germany.
The article doesn't say the Yellow Shirts are the right way to fight capitalism or that any worker is going to help their interests by supporting them.
The US state doesn't have any rights except for being abolished and replaced by a socialist state. - azula
No, that's false.
The Yellow Shirts are protesting because they want more capitalism, not less. They have been annoyed by the current prime minister appeal to the red shirts.
Taking your example, would you support a protest of people in Nazi Germany, who were demanding more Jews be killed, because to them the Nazis aren't killing Jews fast enough? and than label it as a protest against Nazism?
Just because people are protesting angrily does not mean we should give them support. This just shows the bankruptcy of the CWI, but I guess it's impossiblee to make blind people see.
The article says that the bad economy, the viciousness of the neoliberal policies of Thaksin, contribute to the population's anger. That's obviously true. Thaksin is partly to blame for this, and Thaksin is no solution.
You don't seem to understand that this article doesn't say to support the Yellow Shirt leaders or the monarchy. Did you even read the article? It says the only solution in Thailand (like everywhere) is to build a workers party that can take power and abolish capitalism.
So what are you saying that is different?
The US state doesn't have any rights except for being abolished and replaced by a socialist state. - azula
Digging this up from a couple of weeks ago because the CWI website has an article on the current situation in the Thaliand.
(and for guy 123 and his sectarian rant - I am ignoring the usual urban myths listed above and spouted by left sectarians like yourself - but you can add your claim that the CWi supports the 'yellow shirts' to the list of nonsense. I am sure that in 10 years time some clown will find this thread and bring it up again).
