India: Government waging a losing war against Maoist rebels

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8256692.stm

"The prime minister admitted that the Maoists had growing appeal among a large section of Indian society, including tribal communities, the rural poor as well as sections of the intelligentsia and the youth.

...

The rebels operate in 182 districts in India, mainly in the states of Jharkhand, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and West Bengal.
In some areas they have virtually replaced the local government and are able to mount spectacular attacks on government installations."


I found this news rather fascinating.


Opinions?

looks like civil war to me, I say we discuss what America thinks they should do, even though we need to do nothing.

Because Mao did real good for China. /sigh.

They are in the right imo. If these Moaists are attacking government installations, the Indian government has a right to fight back. Why exactly is this so important?

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

Why exactly is this so important?

I don't know, maybe because the Maoists have managed to arouse support from a substantial part of the population, because they actually pose a significant threat to the current government? I consider both of these to be tremendous achievements in a time of capitalist decline, and they are both the results of a very long, protracted war between the two parties.

The government may have a "legitimate" right to take up arms against an insurgent group, but the workers and peasants have an equal duty to remove what they perceive to be unjust and terrible. Unfortunately for you, they can not be removed via the legal system, but must be violently swept away and constitute an ethical, just system in its place.

Because Mao did real good for China. /sigh.

I think Mao was a fascinating character according to what I know about him. The GPCR may have been a disaster and reading up on the treatment of intellectuals such as Ba Jin upsets me, but the core of the idea is really what socialism is about: direct control by the workers.

Furthermore, under Mao's tenure the life expectancy of the chinese people rose drastically, the fastest of any nation on earth. Similar gains were made in areas such as literacy as well.

I'd just like to point out that China's true economic prosperity resulted from when it started using capitalist practices and making itself the manufacturing capital of the world. China is becoming a prosperous nation because it is emulating the capitalist practices of the US and Europe. Japan did the same thing decades ago.

There is absolutely nothing in common between the economies of the USA and China aside from them both being capitalist. We weren't even discussing the point of economics as that has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by Discussion

There is absolutely nothing in common between the economies of the USA and China aside from them both being capitalist.

That's kinda like saying "There is absolutely nothing in common between a Ford and a Chevy other than the fact that they are both cars." The only real diffrence between one capitalist economy and the other is the amount of money they have. China has less than the US, but otherwise they function nearly the same

We weren't even discussing the point of economics as that has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand.

Communism is a form of economy, so any discussion about communism is a discussion about economics.

Anyway, since apparently that is not the topic at hand:
I don't see how a communist system would help India. India's economic problems stem from their extremely high population (just like China's). They simply do not have the resources to supply all those people. All they need to do is impose population controlling laws like China has and they could bring their population to lower levels within one or two generations. Honestly whether they use a capitalist or communist system is irrelevant, as neither would help them that much.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

That's kinda like saying "There is absolutely nothing in common between a Ford and a Chevy other than the fact that they are both cars." The only real diffrence between one capitalist economy and the other is the amount of money they have. China has less than the US, but otherwise they function nearly the same

This has thoroughly convinced me. Please prove me wrong on your points, because while policies meant to work on behalf of corporations are commonplace in the US, the economy is not directly subordinated to the party as is the case in China.

Communism is a form of economy, so any discussion about communism is a discussion about economics.

Except we are discussing the Maoist rebels, and some numbnuts mistakenly thought that the Maoists in India are complete representations of Mao Zedong himself.

Taking a moment to note the hilarity in such an implication, Maoism itself can be deduced as a form of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, but I see no mention of either in this thread.

Anyway, since apparently that is not the topic at hand:
I don't see how a communist system would help India. India's economic problems stem from their extremely high population (just like China's).

Malthus is a liar and was destroyed by Engels nearly two centuries ago - how in the world are his ideas still popular? A few minutes of critical thinking would relegate his ideas to the dustbin as there is no scientific basis found within them. Modern Britain, for instance, is at a point Malthus believed to be inconceivable. According to him current population estimates would have already outstripped our ability to produce food, which facts have clearly demonstrated to be quite the contrary. India is no exception to this.

India's economic problems stem from western imperialism serving as an impetus for a disproportionate sharing of wealth. Slums are sometimes situated next to resorts, basic amenities are beyond the reach of an astounding number of people, and economic restraints have burdened entire families who attempt to eke out an existence by having large families.

They simply do not have the resources to supply all those people.

Asking for proper resource and commodity allocation in a capitalist society is akin to asking for welfare: it simply will not happen. Goods aren't distributed according to need, but according to the pocketbook, and the unfortunate have neither bread nor money.

All they need to do is impose population controlling laws like China has and they could bring their population to lower levels within one or two generations.

You honestly do not see anything wrong with this?

Honestly whether they use a capitalist or communist system is irrelevant, as neither would help them that much.

Yes it would, a centrally-planned economy would guarantee that the indian people have an inalienable right to life.

Originally Posted by Discussion

Except we are discussing the Maoist rebels, and some numbnuts mistakenly thought that the Maoists in India are complete representations of Mao Zedong himself.

Taking a moment to note the hilarity in such an implication, Maoism itself can be deduced as a form of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, but I see no mention of either in this thread.

I personally find it silly to be such a proponent of a man who's policies failed, as well as contributed to the astounding death toles during his time in power. Not mention that it is really just Marx-Leninism in a Chinese context, so calling it Maoism is simply attributing the original policies to a revolutionary. You might as well throw Che'ism into the mix.

I am not a proponent of Mao as I am not entirely familiar with his ideas. I understand them sure enough, but all I have ever read from Mao didn't really deal with theory. This does not mean I can not support a revolutionary communist group who consider themselves Maoists, because, after all, I consider myself a communist and am strictly against dogma.

It is necessary to differentiate between critically evaluating recent events and unconditionally supporting them: the former is a rule I always follow, and the second I regard in the worst manner possible. I do not follow party lines or opinions because I do not believe the concept of socialism stands on a shaky foundation. My beliefs range from a number of theorists which sometimes directly contradict one another, but I believe it is necessary to attempt to reconcile these differences.

Not mention that it is really just Marx-Leninism in a Chinese context, so calling it Maoism is simply attributing the original policies to a revolutionary.

I suppose one could argue that as the conditions of China and Russia at the point of their revolutions are surprisingly similar, but they aren't the same thing. The term Maoist applies to them because they are following the theory of the people's war and because there is a special emphasis on the peasants which constitute a large number of india's population.

You might as well throw Che'ism into the mix.

Che didn't offer anything to theory other than his insights into guerrilla warfare.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I personally find it silly to be such a proponent of a man who's policies failed, as well as contributed to the astounding death toles during his time in power. Not mention that it is really just Marx-Leninism in a Chinese context, so calling it Maoism is simply attributing the original policies to a revolutionary. You might as well throw Che'ism into the mix.

You seem to have forgotten about this thread.

He might be dead, and his economic policies might be diluted, but China is not to be ignored.

They still keep his cadaver on display in the Capital Square, and don't forget about that creepy, omnipresent portrait they are so fond of.

He's more culturally relevant in China than George Washington currently is in the US.

Death toll or not. He was quite the newb at what he was doing, and by newb I mean he was a pioneer of sorts.

If it wasn't for Mao, China wouldn't be in the position they are in today.

Originally Posted by Discussion

I suppose one could argue that as the conditions of China and Russia at the point of their revolutions are surprisingly similar, but they aren't the same thing. The term Maoist applies to them because they are following the theory of the people's war and because there is a special emphasis on the peasants which constitute a large number of india's population.

Of course, but they had to do that in order for their plan to actually be effective.

You seem to have forgotten about this thread.

I didn't. The thing is, it wasn't really Mao. It was, Deng Xiaoping. He was the one who brought China to it's absurd status in the market today.

He might be dead, and his economic policies might be diluted, but China is not to be ignored.

Deng Xiaoping.

Death toll or not. He was quite the newb at what he was doing, and by newb I mean he was a pioneer of sorts.

Millions of peoples dead or not...

If it wasn't for Mao, China wouldn't be in the position they are in today.

You could say that about any figure in history good or bad. But this man, Deng Xiaoping, was the one that pushed China into a position of world power.

^ On the foundations of Maoism.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Millions of peoples dead or not...

Yeah, Mao should've just kept to killing millions of people in OTHER countries. Much more humane, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Skoomy

Yeah, Mao should've just kept to killing millions of people in OTHER countries. Much more humane, don't you agree?

You know, FOV was only talking about China. He was not attempting to draw a comparison to any other nation. I've got to say this was a terrible rebuttal to what was a fair criticism of Mao. What any other nation did under any other economic or political policies does not diminish what happened in China under Mao's leadership.

As for the rebels, I doubt they'll be able to do much. India has too many allies and even by itself is an insurmountable obstacle. I'd say that these Maoists will either stagnate or loose too much steam to keep going.

fyi, that was hardly my way of stating "Mao is awesome", if that was what you thought.

If the Maoists start winning, the United Kingdom should intervene, considering India is in the Commonwealth.

Originally Posted by Discussion

This has thoroughly convinced me. Please prove me wrong on your points, because while policies meant to work on behalf of corporations are commonplace in the US, the economy is not directly subordinated to the party as is the case in China.

There are more differences between Chinese capitalism and American capitalism than there are between say, American and German capitalism. However, the principles behind the two remain the same. Chinese government keeps a tighter rein on businesses than the American government does, probably due to China's original communist roots. However, I believe in time China's economy will mirror the US's more and more. 50 years from now they will probably be identical.

Malthus is a liar and was destroyed by Engels nearly two centuries ago - how in the world are his ideas still popular? A few minutes of critical thinking would relegate his ideas to the dustbin as there is no scientific basis found within them. Modern Britain, for instance, is at a point Malthus believed to be inconceivable. According to him current population estimates would have already outstripped our ability to produce food, which facts have clearly demonstrated to be quite the contrary. India is no exception to this.

Malthus's theory doesn't apply. In his time, mass commerce on the scale we have today hadn't been around. Back then, the only foods that were imported from other places were luxury items, not common staples like grain. Thus his theories assume that a country will get the majority of its staple food from within its own borders. India has been able to defy this theory because it imports food from other nations to supplement its own produce.

India's economic problems stem from western imperialism serving as an impetus for a disproportionate sharing of wealth. Slums are sometimes situated next to resorts, basic amenities are beyond the reach of an astounding number of people, and economic restraints have burdened entire families who attempt to eke out an existence by having large families.

Its true that abandonment by western powers has contributed to that (honestly, it is possible they would be better off if they were still British subjects, but who can say?). However, their out of control population is an equal factor.

Asking for proper resource and commodity allocation in a capitalist society is akin to asking for welfare: it simply will not happen. Goods aren't distributed according to need, but according to the pocketbook, and the unfortunate have neither bread nor money.

Several countries in Asia have managed to go from poor to wealthy in a short (economically speaking) amount of time through manufacturing and commerce. India can do the same.

You honestly do not see anything wrong with this?

I do not know the best way to fix a high population, and I am by no means and expert on such subjects. I would say though that there is something wrong with nation with a population of over 1 billion that does not have the money to adequately care for that many.

Yes it would, a centrally-planned economy would guarantee that the indian people have an inalienable right to life.

Even if they were to convert to communism right now, it would not increase their wealth enough to provide for their population. Thus, it is irrelevant what form of economy they choose.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

There are more differences between Chinese capitalism and American capitalism than there are between say, American and German capitalism. However, the principles behind the two remain the same. Chinese government keeps a tighter rein on businesses than the American government does, probably due to China's original communist roots. However, I believe in time China's economy will mirror the US's more and more. 50 years from now they will probably be identical.

it sounds like you're assuming ours won't change at all, when really we are about to experience a complete overhaul of an entire infrastructure which comprises roughly 1/6 of our total economy.

If they do end up "identical" it will probably because we meat in the middle.

I do not know the best way to fix a high population, and I am by no means and expert on such subjects. I would say though that there is something wrong with nation with a population of over 1 billion that does not have the money to adequately care for that many.

Which is why any children born over the "limit" will not receive educational support from the government. The exception being children born off the mainland, which is why if you ever take a flight from Beijing to hong kong you shouldn't be surprised to see several late-stage pregnant women.