India & Pakistan: A Rotten compromise.

Its been more than half a century since the Indian subcontinent got rid of the colonial masters , yet it is still plagued with chronic poverty, illness, war, state-repression, social,political and economic exploitation. There are active struggles for the right to self-determination and demand for human-rights by the most poor and under-privileged people in almost all regions spanning the 3 countries. The subcontinent was first divided into two nations (later three) on religious and ethnic lines.The British had enslaved the sub-continent for almost 200 yrs.The famous sea-route discovered by the Portuguese sailor Vasco-da-gama, open vast opportunities for the loot of labor and natural resources for the Imperial powers of Europe. This had a direct plight on the social as well as economical conditions of the Indian masses. There is no doubt that primitive accumulation of capital had already created a class society.The caste-system (which i would get into details) serves as an inferential evidence. But, the introduction of new property-relations and capitalist mode of exchange introduced by the British East India company hallowed the traditional cottage industry by forced monopoly of British "free-markets".

The toiling peasantry came under increasing pressure to cultivate inedible cash crops like cotton and indigo which were shipped back to the booming textile mills of Manchester during the early stages of the Industrial revolution at a very substandard price. This resulted into an acute shortage of edible crops, disruption of the crop cycle and loss of valuable commodity for exchange resulting into large-scale famines leading to genocidal deaths. Farmers lost their land and means of subsistence. This created a large section of native landed gentry comprising of upper-caste landlord and High-ranking Company's officers who were able to solidify their grip on the landless peasant mostly comprising of the lower caste. Caste-system is a topic of another article, it is a form of oppressive ancient system, which segregates individual by birth in to 4 main castes, the majority to the population either lie in the last 2 castes which have been historically oppressed by the upper ones.It is widely followed within the Hindu-society, but a common social practice among all religious and ethnic groups on the sub-continent. This fermented an ideal opportunity for the Company to harness and further the divisions which made it possible to rule such a huge and diverse land-mass. This key historical condition sheds light on the foundation of the sub-continent's current social and economical hardships.The anti-imperial sentiment was establish right after the company's consolidation of the power through a series of wars with local kings and indigenous tribes.The famous rebellion of the 1857 can be considered as one of the 1st attempt to a unified fight back against imperial oppression. The immediate reaction was the direct intervention of the British empire, by which the British state took direct responsibility of governing the Indian colony. This exposes the class nature of British imperialism, where the state and private enterprise served as revolving doors harmonious within the interest of the ruling class.

With the advent of 20th Cen. Introduction of Western-education and isolated industrialization in selected Urban spots made the emerging ideas of Nation-state a desirable and popular demand. But, by then the carnage of two world wars had put a heavy toll on the British administration. Therefore, the empire unrelentingly concede to a demand of'complete independence' prior to the initial push for a dominion status.Imperialist stooges like Winston Churchill had famously declared that India was ungovernable without the might of the British empire and he was under no desire to "liquidate her majesty's empire which, was fought by the British blood. Following the war, a new government of the labour party came to power which no longer had the appetite for imperial quests since, the war had changed the political aspirations of the British masses. As talks for transfer of power solidified, the effects of years of coercive policies of'divide and rule' perpetuated by the empire raised its ugly head which eventually led to a bloody partition of the subcontinent. Could the partition have been avoided, which led towards one of the biggest forced migration followed by brutal killings on both sides?

The contemporary narrative for the cause of partition is usually rested on the inability of the independence leadership to reach on an agreement of a untied India since, India was never a unified country and within it existed nationalities with antagonistic hegemonic base and super-structures.It is true, that the India of the nation-states did flare the historic communal tensions between the majority Hindu population and the prominent minority of the Muslim religion, yet there is conclusive evidence that the culture of the subcontinent has a rich past derived from shared traditions, customs, languages, food,etc. There is no doubt that caste based oppression never actualized the bonds of traditional sense of nationhood, because it restricted common socializing practices like dinning or working side by side with a fellow country-men outside of the caste. There are certain "jatis within the lower caste who were even forbidden to touch or drink water from a public reservoir. This probably also answers the antithesis between class and caste. However, some of these practices began to frail in and around urban areas where one had to work together regardless of caste or religion, in mostly, British owned factories. Since, it worked in the interest of the domestic bourgeoisie, reformist movement within the Hindu upper-caste began to marginally support the abolition of such draconian practices.If the struggle for Indian independence is considered a fight against imperialism then one of the salient event highlighting the most spectacular episodes of this struggle was the Royal mutiny of the Indian navy on February 18th 1946. It had the potential to alter the trajectory of history on the entire sub-continent towards a greater achievement of people's liberation. It all started when a few sailors and ship-men on board HMS "Talwaar" went on strike protesting against bad or unsanitary food and adverse conditions. The protest took place on the industrial port city of Bombay. This followed after a mass uprising which had a series of occurrences the entire preceding decade. The message of the sailor strike soon spread like a wild fire in an already growing anti-imperial sentiment among the masses. On the next day February 19th wider sections of the navy joined the revolt. A total of 74 ships, 20 fleets and 22 units of navy along the coast including major industrial ports like Bombay, Calcutta, Karachi, Madras, Cochin, and Vishakapatnam got involved. There were reports of the Union Jack being torn and replaced by red flags and the earlier version of the popular tri-colour which later became the official flag of modern India. Radio stations were soon taken over which transmitted updates on the revolt and also broadcast-ed revolutionary songs and poems.

Initial confusion might have made this rebellion appear as a spontaneous event, however, the revolting sailors were quick to organize a strike committee. The leadership elected by the committee comprised of two sailors one being a Muslim and the second a Sikh, this was a conscious effort to undermine the divisive propaganda of the domestic bourgeoisie and their British masters who were busy with negotiating the rummage of power among themselves in a prospective post-colonial India . The immediate objective of the strike committee was to link up the sailors revolt to the already striking textile mill workers and railway workmen in Bombay, who were participating in a general strike. This was a theoretically accurate attempt to get a political party involved which could accelerate the momentum. Tragically the Communist Party of India(CPI) under the whips of the degenerated 3rd Communist International failed to act as the vanguard of this particular revolutionary upsurge. The disastrous Kremlin-led policy of a 'popular front' against the fascist aligned the CPI with the imperial masters while the national bourgeois leadership overtly and covertly co opted to crush the revolt. The domestic bourgeoisie were fearful of these young radicalized sailors, since they threaten to evoke revolutionary politics on mainstream of the Independence movement

The Indian National Congress (INC) was the most prominent party of the Indian bourgeoisie. At its inception it was a secular party which claimed to represent all of India's people, this changed when the emergence of M.K. Gandhi, who willingly introduced religious chauvinism within the party line.Fundamentalist religious organizations were seldom before Gandhi introduced his reactionary idealism and spiritual "mumbo jumbo" into mainstream freedom fight.Gandhi was from a petty-bourgeois upper-class family, He was a lawyer, by trade, but had supposedly renounced his western etiquette after, turning his life for the independence struggle. He claimed to champion the rights of the lower-caste, one cannot deny his populist role in bringing the Indian masses together, but, his ideological leanings were anything but, counter-revolutionary. His attempts for opportunist demagogy was exposed by a Dalit leader(lower caste) Dr, Babasaheb Ambedkar who shed lights on contradictory view-points published by Gandhi in two different newsletters where he's caught appeasing the working-class and the lower caste community in his liberal English daily, where as spewing hatred towards the same demographic in a vernacular magazine by claiming his support to the restoration of the abusive caste-system and calling on workers subservient to the capitalist-class because according to him the capitalist out-flanks the working-class due to it's supremacy is intellect and tact. Following this revelation, Dr. Ambedkar defined Gandhi as a manufactured leader who came into prominence with the help of the British, the upper caste and the funds of the domestic bourgeoisie. With Gandhi's encouragement religious sentiments were inspired, often under the guise of "inter-faith harmony". This became one of the fundamental feuds between Gandhi and M.A Jinnah, the leader of newly established Muslim League (Political party) and then, later the founder of modern day Pakistan, who finally split away from the INC in 1920 . Organizations like the Hindu Maha sabha and the Rastriya Swayam Sevaks (RSS) quickly sprung like mushrooms on a rainy day. The rise of the Muslim League's demand for a separate Muslim homeland, fuled organizations like the RSS to stage demands for a Hindutva nationalism. RSS, to this day plays a pivotal role in modern India's politics, often fanning the flames of communal disharmony. The organization at once had pictures of Mussolini and Adolf Hitler decorated in their pantheons, calling on the Hindus to draw inspiration from the German nationalist by spilling venom against the Muslim community by calling them " The Jews of India." Their popular support is still reflected by their grip on the nation's largest trade union named Bhartiya Mazdoor Sang. Muslim political elites were no better than Gandhi's clique, while their concerns for Muslim safety in a majoritarian Hindu nation was legitimate, They never seeked to voice the grievances of the Muslim workers or tried to align with the nation's other minorities.They too were fearful of emerging class consciousness of the Indian proletariat. The emergence of the Muslim League had its origin in London by a group of wealthy Muslim lawyers who romanticized themselves as heirs of the Mughal rule during the medieval period .

On February 21, 1946, British shock troops opened fire on the rebel held fleet in Bombay thus, the peaceful strike became an armed uprising. Around the next day, 14 sailors were killed at the port city of Karachi. The British Labour prime minister, Clement Atlee in sheer desperation ordered the uprising to be crushed by means of violent force. An ultimatum was given to the rebel sailors which ordered them to, "surrender or perish." The INC and the Muslim League set aside their differences for a very brief period of time to form a unified support to this imperialist ultimatum.Gandhi opposed the revolt right from the first day. Another INC leader, named Sardar V. B. Patel openly denounced and discredited the sailors. while, Leaders like S.C. Bose was occupied in adventurist program of the free Indian National army (INA) to the point where he co-opted with the reactionary forces of Nazi Third Reich and Japanese imperialism. This exposed the real class character of the native bourgeoisie. M.N Roy, the founder of the Communist Party of India and Mexico had expressed the possibility of a similar situation at the Second Congress of the Communist International on the colonial question.The strike committee met twice before surrendering themselves at 6 A.M. on February 26, 1946. Most of the leaders of the revolt, even after surrender, were either prosecuted, incarcerated, or executed.

The rebellion was crushed, but it certainly shook the British morale in India. Following this incident, Prime Minister Atlee immediately announced the deadline of the British departure which was set to June 1948. They left a year earlier on Aug 14-15th 1947. The strike committee before surrendering, gave an official statement "Our uprising was an important historical event in the lives of our people. For the first time the blood of uniformed and non-uniformed workers flowed in one current for the same collective cause. We the workers in uniform shall never forget this. We also know that you, our proletarian brothers and sisters shall also never forget this. The coming generations, learning its lessons shall accomplish what we have not been able to achieve. Long live the working masses. Long live the Revolution".

There is no doubt that this uprising under a vanguard revolutionary party had the potential for a successful insurrection which would have had a different conclusion.The peculiarity of this rebellion had a resounding similarity to certain aspects of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia which has always served as a source of inspiration to the workers around the world.The revolutionary role played by this mutiny should become a beacon of hope while organizing in the nightmarish hell the sub-continent has attained.The independence which we sought was illusive, A rotten compromise. Years after, the cold-war has a lasting impression on both the countries. While, India maintained a Keynesian style social democracy, Pakistan under the tent of the west became a military style puppet state. Both the countries have fought numerous wars, especially on the issue of the province of Kashmir, which is still a contemporary issue. Both have now reached nuclear capacity. After, the fall of the Berlin wall, India gave up on it's venture of planned economy and opened up the markets for Intentional capital. It is yet to see the cyclical cycle of capitalist depression.But, newly adopted neo-liberal polices have already started to take its effect.Especially, now, since the government in power is a coalition with the political wing of the RSS. Nationalistic chauvinism has also gone up.Attacks on civil-rights and minorities have escalated.Caste and gender based violence has risen. Although, the caste-system and untouchability was constitutionally banned after Independence, It has become institutionalized which still has a hegemonic dominance. Attempts are in progress to de-fund higher education public schools and universities. The war on the indigenous people living in mineral rich central India has seen a new revival.The people in Kashim literally live under an occupy war-zone.The only silver-lining out of these looming clouds has been the emerging students movement which has been waging a strong resistance.

Critics of communism would often cite the failures of the Russian and/or the Chinese revolutions. Yet, they fail to acknowledge the vast leaps which these nations could accomplish. Or the reforms won by the working-class in the west under the shadow of a similar uprising. The founders of the Russian revolution understood the importance of an International revolution. Especially, among the most advanced capitalist countries. The post 2008 financial crisis has seen a rise in the consciousness among the working-class in the west. It can be inferred as evidence with the rise of social-democratic leaders, like Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain. The most vital task for today's revolutionist is with to learn the lessons from all prior attempts towards liberation while never failing to undermine the ability of the capitalist-class to re-spawn. remember, in words of one of the great Marxist, "It is either socialism, or barbarism".- Rosa Luxembourg

The Hindu Rashtra

India is a land of multiple cultures, communities, languages and ethnicity.Though, one may find several contradictions with its social frame. Historically, It has been a tolerant and progressive society and this is evident in its arts, food, commonalities in languages and shared traditions.It is home to almost 17.5% of the total world population. This relative harmonious nature has been time after time challenged by the reactionary forces universal in every society.The fulcrum of the recent unrest has been conviction and death sentence of '93 Mumbai blast accused Yakub Memon. Even before I elaborate the underlying effects of this judicial verdict, I would like to make it clear that I do not deny the real threat posed by the reactionary forces within the Muslim community. Alienation is a class-issue which affects working-masses from all communities.But,the most troubling aspects about this particular incident has been the outright Islamophobia and the blood thirsty consciousness which reeks among the majoritarian Hindu nationalists. I do not intend to use the word Hindu nationalism loosely and therefore, I'll attempt to articulate a summary of the harmful effects of its reactionary nature.

The history of this communal antagonism is predominant in the mid 20th Cen. colonial India, where the idea of nation-state was an emerging phenomena and the only means for future governance was a bourgeois democracy. This gave rise to what we now understand as communal vote bank politics.Till then the word 'Hindu' had a broader and vague connotation. Hinduism being a polytheistic religion never had a centralized consciousness which one might see in the Abrahamic religions. The social system of caste was an equivalent to a modern day apartheid system of oppression where majority within its contemporary fold(false conscious)are still oppressed socially and economically because of their descent. To define a caste, it can be said as a tribal system of endogamous marriage practices primarily based on an exogamous base. It has a hierarchical pyramid of religious privileges and duties, where the highest of the castes enjoys most of the privileges and minimal duties where as, most of the "duties" were pushed on the lower ones. This infers to the fact that Hindu by themselves were never a one nation. Similarly, the remaining minorities of the sub-continent i.e: Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc,were and are still marginalized in all aspects of the society.(Housing, jobs,prestige, social acceptance) This system of hegemony of the upper-class Hindus is what I term as Hindu-supremacy.I do not intend to criticized the philosophical attempt of a religion to understand the nature of existence,but the institutionalization of its prejudicial social structure i.e so-called Śāstras "scared laws" needs to be smashed!

A through analysis of Hindu nationalism would be a topic of another blog, but since it's a summary I would jump into post-independent India, Where caste-based segregation still remains as an issue(i.e socially accepted), but the apathy of the rising urban educated middle-class fumes its sentimentality.Fear based intimidation has been its prominent streak. An international product of capitalist propaganda, Where "war on terror" has been intentionally placed in such a manner which blurs the lines between fundamental Islamist groups, the ideology of Islam and the word terrorism. Since most of the rational for the hanging were based upon "fighting terrorism". I would urge the sincere to objectify their stand. To fight terrorism we need to 1st be able to define it and later find appropriate measures to deter the crimes committed. So, Terrorism can be defined as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear"-NC. It is a method, not an ideology.If one applies this definition to other acts of calculated violence like the intimidation by Hindu leader Bal Thackeray during the'92 Mumbai riots, openly spilling venom against the Muslims of Mumbai and challenging the police and judiciary to arrest him for his fear mongering, this coercive nature has given his proto-fascist Shiv Sena party the political capital which still has its hold on working-class communities in Mumbai. Or take for example the infamous Gujarat Riots of '02 where there has been suo moto evidence against the now Prime minister of India and then, the members of his state cabinet with his associates from the same reactionary groups like the RSS, BD and VHP, to which Mr. Modi belongs. RSS(Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) has a history of openly praising the fascist dictators of 20th Cen. Europe. It preaches for a Hindu state and has openly called out the Muslims as the Jews of India. There are several examples of terrorist activities instrumented by the state on its own people. In a bourgeois democracy the state is always antagonistic towards the interests of the people, and this is evident in the deeds of the so-called secular party the Congress,the "lesser-evil" which has its own hands in people's blood(the plight of the Sikh community in'84) While the national consciousness was very keen on hanging Yakub, the accused on the other side have not faced any considerable legal actions. Mr.Thackeray was given a state funeral on his natural death, whereas Maya Kodani and Babu Bajrangi accused for their respective involvement during Gujarat riots are out on bail. can't this be ruled as the use of state to institutionalize a reactionary anti-people ideology?

"The peculiarity in Memons’s case stems from the fact that he had chosen to travel to Delhi from Pakistan—where he and his family had been in hiding since the blasts—on 28 July 1994.He had come back with the intent, as the sequence of events seems to suggest, of aiding the investigating agencies in their task. The evidence that Memon provided during the investigation proved to be crucial in proving Pakistan’s links to the blasts. However, if Memon had made this journey with the expectation being shown leniency, he was to be proven wrong. This became evident when his death sentence was read out by a Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (Preventive) [TADA] judge in 2007".[1]TADA is a similar draconian law which parallels the Bush era PATRIOT act of '01 in the US. This was the reason why the reactionary elements from the Muslims community vocalized their rhetoric, which in turn would create another generation of Yakub Memons. Remember!the Mumbai blast of '93 was a reaction to the post-Babri riots of '92-93."Punishment in a humane society must balance between retribution on behalf of the victim and the possibility of the rehabilitation of the criminal.And, of course, it must meet the requirement of proportionality, in other words, the punishment must fit the crime".[2] The issue of capital punishment morally speaking is a remnant of inhuman colonial era law,and my denouncement doesn't equals me of being an anti-national.This verdict doesn't serve as justice but adds the vicious cycle of vengeance.

"While the youth of the nation got occupied in a jarring outcry post the commutation of the sentence. The ruling class with its politicians has managed to subdue the recent surge surrounding the External Affairs minister Sushma Swaraj and Rajasthan’s Chief Minister Vasundhra Raje over their murky connection to Lalit Modi,the former commissioner of the Indian Premier League(Cricket event); the scores of mysterious deaths around the massive Vyapam scam"[3]. Looks like our Capitalist masters have revived the old trick of stroking the goat in the process of looting the wealth of the nation.

Articles cited: [1].http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/death-yakub-memon-should-alert-us-birth-new-republic [2]Paraphase.http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/death-yakub-memon-should-alert-us-birth-new-republic [3]Paraphase http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/death-yakub-memon-should-alert-us-birth-new-republic

Black lives matter.

The plight of African Americans can be explained from the beginning of the 15th century, as western European monarchies began to recover from the dark ages. Many people call Christopher Columbus as the, “godfather” of the Trans-Atlantic trade, and rightfully so, as his “discovery” of the new-world led the Spanish and Portuguese monarchies on a literal frenzy to snatch up new land, which was impossible in the already crowded Europe. By this time imperialism was in full swing. Due to the naval supremacy of the Spanish and the Portuguese they had already began trading with the western African kingdoms. The main commodity for the impetus of this trade was labour, initially for house-hold purposes which later expanded in to their plantations in Caribbean, central and South America. With the systematic genocidal murders of the natives there arise a vacuum or demand of indenture servitude, thus giving rise to the vicious triangle of trans-Atlantic trade.

As time passed, the Spanish and the Portuguese empires declined, they were replaced by the British and the French who hoarded of the land in North-America which was previously untouched by the Spanish and the Portuguese. As far as what was happening in Africa, most of the people who were enslaved were captives of rival tribes captured in a battle. The Europeans traded them on the Atlantic coast, like the Bight of Benin in the north or Angola in the south, even though many of them came from places inland. Thousands of them died on a thousand miles marches from inland towards the coast to be sold, and once they were sold they were packed into the ships in literally the same manner as cargo. Roughly 2 million out of 12 million people brought to the Americas in the Trans-Atlantic trade died in the voyage due to the conditions on the ships.

The US bourgeoisie post the revolution (declaration of independence 1776) made it extremely clear that the Africans were property, and not people. They did so by creating legal code that would disadvantage them. Soon after, the US constitution featured a population count, that counted 5 blacks as 3 people, i.e. 1 black person was only 3/5 of a person. Black people were not allowed to hold land. Even seldom when they became free, they were not allowed to vote legally until 1865 and actually in practice till 1965 (post-civil-rights movement) the enslaved were intentionally traded away from their families. By the end of 19th century a civil war broke in the United States, between the industrial north and the agrarian south. In India, we usually presume that the conflict at its core had a moral impetus of ‘abolishment of the slavery’. This is far from the truth if you observe the conflict with the lenses of historical materialism. This movement of abolishment was a top to down revolution, by that time industrial capitalism had established its roots in the north. The northern bourgeoisie manufactures intended to push this new form of economic system on the wealthy southern plantation owners. The south’s succession- understanding that there was virtually no manufacturing in the south and nearly all the manufactured goods came from the north. This became unacceptable for the northern bourgeoisie who stood to lose a lot of profit in the process.

The end of the civil war marked with a northern victory opened a new chapter in the history of African Americans. Then ushered the era of reconstruction where considerable progress was achieved in the advancement for the rights of former slaves. The first decade also saw an increase in the rise of the black population in the prison labour systems which till this day stand to be disproportionate. Following the years all southern states including some states in the north adopted the draconian Jim Crow laws, claiming to provide ‘separate but equal’ rights for the blacks, the law prohibited blacks from using the same facilities, attend the same schools or hold the same job as whites. This continued almost post WW2. Black people were largely occupied as share-croppers. I.e. Agricultural labourers living under peasant like conditions. To escape from these treacherous conditions many young black people migrated to big cities like New York and Chicago in a hope to find better paying industrial jobs. This era particularly marks the cultural emancipation of the black people in the US in the form of Harlem renaissance, a movement which witnessed black communities actively contributing in various walk of life including religion, arts, music and academics. This great migration also saw an increase of the black population into the industrial workforce, yet they were paid less than their white counterpart. Many of them were left unemployed and used intentionally as strike-buster by the factory owners to create more antagonism in all-white unions. This didn’t change until the radicalization of the labour movement and the emergence of the Communist party USA during the time of the great depression.

The post-modern American society saw a decline in the living conditions of the working-class. The US was no longer was a major producer or manufacturers. All those production jobs were systematically outsourced to exploit the cheap-labour in third world countries like ours. The current BJP led government’s “make in India” campaign is an ideal example of such an abuse. This de-industrialization of the American working-class affected the black communities the most, since black people were denied education, the blue-collar jobs were the prime source of economic stability. Why Black lives matter? In the last 40-45 years, after the beginning of the decline of American domestic industrialization, virtually all the economic expansion in the US have occurred in either the field of finance or service sector. The finance sector has been inaccessible to black people because of the denial of education and institutionalized racism, which has been internalized in all walks of the American society. While, the service sector which approximately employees 70% of the American workforce, the capitalist over here have been successful in creating low-wage jobs by decades of union-busting laws in early 80’s and 90’s.

One cannot begin to have an objective discussion on the condition of the black people in the US today without accounting to the fact that out of the total general US population blacks constitutes 13% of the total population, yet they comprise 37% of the prison population, 30% of the total population living below the poverty line and 44% of the total population working on low-wage jobs. Why is that they have a high rate on unemployment and low rate of high school graduation (not college) compared to whites? While these questions remained unanswered the effects of cultural hegemony have been tremendous. Imagine a group of people forcefully removed and then being denied the right to learn their own heritage, being denied basic schooling and treated as savages and thugs by the state apparatus (media and police). The new civil-rights movement started with the murder of a young black teenager being shot by the police in the small town of Ferguson in St. Louis County, MO, while he had his hands up. But the underline grievances have been years of exploitation by the ruling elites. A recent report on the municipal courts of the Ferguson city backs this claim. Out of the city’s total population, 67% of residents are blacks. Of it, 22% of the total population lives below the poverty line. Despite, Ferguson’s relative poverty, fines and court-fees comprises the second largest source of the city’s revenue. A modern day debtor’s prison has become a common practice in America’s small towns and cities. Malcom-X was right when he said, “You can’t have capitalism without racism”. Black lives matter is a revolutionary movement demanding for radical justice especially economic justice. The black people of the US are fighting to shake off their chains!

P.S: A special thanks to Com. Albert Terry(MBSA CWI-US)who gave me a definite perspective so as to introduce the topic of slavery in the U.S

Crisis in Thailand.

Thailand is a country located at the center of the Indo-china peninsula in south-east Asia. It is bordered to the north by Burma and Laos, to the east by Cambodia, to the south by Malaysia and to the west by the Andaman sea
The political history of Thailand is dominated by numerous military coupe. The country claims to be a constitutional monarchy next to Japan in Asia but, the monarch king Rama IX has a complete control over the military and jurisprudence of the nation. One of the compelling reason for such a powerful alliance between the military and the nobility is the country's strong relationship with the United States government post second world war and especially during the Vietnam war, where members of any left organization across the south-east Asia were witch-hunted and killed for their political philosophy.
Thailand's class struggle is historic but i can only dare to analyze it's contemporary period. The early 60's when the 57% of the population lived in poverty, mostly peasants scattered in the north and north-east parts of the country. The country was still agrarian while industrialization was observed in secluded parts of the south and coastal ports. The early 80's witnessed the usher of free-market system. Even with the growth rate of 12.4% the rural areas of the north suffered the worst standard of living.The rich got richer while the poor kept on getting poorer.
The working-class witnessed a full-blown exploitation in the year 1997 when the bubble of the 'Asian economic miracle' busted. The military refused to intervene leaving the crisis for the bourgeoisie to steer. This economic crisis also marks the entry of neo-liberal politics in the country. The ruling bourgeoisie let the international bourgeoisie in the form of IMF(International monetary fund) intervene in their domestic economic policy making. The IMF initiated cuts in public fundings and reformed the financial institutions in favor of furthering free-market exploitation. The masses without a strong workers led party or a real trade union were helpless in stopping the looting of the wealth of their nation.
The 21st century bought a major change in the country's political landscape. This comes to no surprise judging by the contemporary economic conditions of the US and the emergence of the neo-liberal mouth piece like President Obama. Similarly Thailand in the year 2001 elected a neo-liberal demagogue who tapped in to the throbbing vein of anti-IMF resentment among the masses. The election witnessed candidate Thaksin Shinawatra of the Pheu Thai party in power with a 40% of the total vote. The largest majority in any open Thai elections.
Prime minister Shinawatra in no ways desired a socialist transformation of the nation. However, while in power he implemented numerous reforms which were Keynesian in nature. The reforms were in the interest of the poor , particularly the rural peasantry in the north, where the national income increased by 46% from 2001-2006. Nation-wide poverty fell from 21.3% to 11.3%. This guaranteed Thaksin and his party a strong base which has proletarian in nature.
Thaksin's popularity among the masses alarmed his opponent bourgeoisie and the ruling nobility. Following the second electoral victory there were allegations made by the opposition 'royalist' party charging him with corruption and privatization of the state-owned enterprises. These allegations though hypocritical in nature brought Thaksin in odds with a certain layer of the working-class. The military sensing his venerable position ousted him in an overnight coup sparking a conflict between the reactionary royalist also know as the 'yellow shirts' and pro Thaksin's 'red-shirts'.
The elections in 2007 saw a pro-Thaksin party again in power but they were hardly allowed to presume the office because of a court decision resulting in to a judicial coup. The military again intervened taking control of the streets while the opposing bourgeoisie staged a puppet government which resorted the hegemony of the international bourgeoisie.
The crisis reached it's pinnacle when the ruling unelected government were forced to declare new elections in the year 2011. The new elections bought Yingluck Shinawatra in power, Yingluck is the sister of now exiled ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The elections did gave her her brothers credibility. Like her brother she rose to power as a populist. She followed the similar Keynesian policies. However, unlike her brother she faced an economic situation completely different. In an global economic meltdown, An economy that relies heavily on exports was bound to follow severe repercussions.
The current coup which has been a success reveals implicitly the class-antagonism and how the capitalist system works against any form of democracy. If Yingluck truly represented the working people she could have easily stood her ground and radicalized her political base. She in no ways supports nor even inclines on the thoughts of over throwing this repressive system. On the contrary she consciously made efforts to work on a deal with her fellow bourgeoisie and the military. The military has once again snatched the power; and in an attempt to conform the masses is giving out free hair-cuts and free broadcast of the football world cup.The red-shirts are left without a leader or any form of organized structure from which a vanguard party could emerged. What would happen next is hard to predict, With the military by their side, the bourgeoisie is going to try it's best to hold on to the status-quo.With globalization the struggle for workers control is no longer acute towards the most capitalist country. Yet, a counter-punch in the belly of the beast is our only hope towards an international revolution.

How war helps capitalism?

Capitalist calls upon the poor and oppressed of his own homeland to combat the insurgency. Words like terrorist, Radical Islamist or "a commie" might sound synonymous. People who could relate to those terms serve as the basic pool from which soldiers may be drafted into the imperial armies, the workers from the imperialist powers are thus doubly important to capital. This also signifies why most of the youth find armed forces as their last resort for better opportunity. Fear and dislike of the poorer must be cultivated. Though largely psychological in origins and effects, we can sense them via social discriminations like

racism a kin to nationalism and also fascism. This fear though superficial has a realistic base as well, In competition between the labourers of the same working class. A great example is the members of the reactionary group called the TEA party of the US.
Usually the better paid workers of a great power prize their relative affluence. They fear the reduction of the value of their labour-power which the competition of poorer foreign workers threatens. Therefore, there is a general consent of rejection among the right-conservative leaning politicians for any reformation when it comes to immigration.Jealously eager to preserve their hard-won pay gains-as well they should be!-better paid workers(still working class) too often direct their fire not against the bourgeois and his fellow capitalist-the enemy- but against the poor paid workers in foreign lands who often are also the victim of mindless subjugation.
This allows the bourgeois the best of both the worlds-to militarily repress the low paid via military-industrial complex,covert operations and Coup d'états and economically control the better paid by mindless control over unlimited useless consumption to banking on social discrimination based on various aspects like language, colour, creed, ethnicity, religious beliefs and gender.
More is the pity- because it is only the alliance of the workers from all lands that can put a stop to predatory capitalism, reaffirming the human needs and capacities that capital alienates and distorts.
reference:
Smith, David, and Phil Evans. Marx's Kapital for beginners. 1. 1. Newyork: Pantheon, 1982. 159-161. Print.