It's all about maoist stuff in india, where people have the good sense to go around dying at the hands of special military troops that are called snake eaters as their official name instead of just a nickname. He also also explained they have fuck you got mine dhalit politicians like american black people have barack obama
Crow posted:did he say anything about the concrete situation in his urban area?
pretty hard!!! haha!!!
to break out of that model they'd have to win over both the slums and the villages. but this more traditional poor in india is probably harder to win over because it is much more integrated into systems of power. like the reason why maoists took over the forests is because that was a part of india that the state completely neglected and didn't even think was important strategically. despite a few statements here or there, they aren't as concerned about maoists as they are like islamists and such. how many professional troops are occupying kashmir and how many total paramilitary and such are active across the entire band of maoist held territory. so basically the maoists raced into a vacuum but now they have a harder time transitioning to base areas outside their traditional areas.
the poor in villages have fought pretty hard to keep or expand programs like guaranteed hours of work or grain requisitioning and such. they are involved in their local councils, which are probably more important to them than like far-off parliaments. even then the poor play a pretty big role in electing center-left (although neoliberal) governments. i don't think it's likely that like that core giant mass of poor is going to shift towards maoism.
getfiscal posted:the maoists control most of the forests in india which are usually designated as tribal areas and are very important for mineral extraction and such. but their presence in slums and villages isn't really all that big. so at best they can just harass police and special deputies in towns near the forests.
to break out of that model they'd have to win over both the slums and the villages. but this more traditional poor in india is probably harder to win over because it is much more integrated into systems of power. like the reason why maoists took over the forests is because that was a part of india that the state completely neglected and didn't even think was important strategically. despite a few statements here or there, they aren't as concerned about maoists as they are like islamists and such. how many professional troops are occupying kashmir and how many total paramilitary and such are active across the entire band of maoist held territory. so basically the maoists raced into a vacuum but now they have a harder time transitioning to base areas outside their traditional areas.
the poor in villages have fought pretty hard to keep or expand programs like guaranteed hours of work or grain requisitioning and such. they are involved in their local councils, which are probably more important to them than like far-off parliaments. even then the poor play a pretty big role in electing center-left (although neoliberal) governments. i don't think it's likely that like that core giant mass of poor is going to shift towards maoism.
tpaine posted:myfnfym is raising fowl?! omg, why didn't you post in the rhizzone gardening thread. we could have shared tips! HAHAHAHA!!!
hahah you're crazy man
Crow posted:did he say anything about the concrete situation in his urban area?
You could ask him yourself. I assume it's still a rural thing, it is maoism after all
aerdil posted:since you were on omegle, did you show each other your cocks before or after this conversation
People just open up to me, because i'm a good listener and have kind american eyes and hair
but like outside the people immediately affected by the megaprojects, most poor in india probably have the same views as chinese towards reform - as long as general progress continues and the government throws a bit of money into social guarantees and tries to cut down on corruption a bit, it's not worth going to war over. i mean some people disagree with that but the question is about which whole classes of people would choose people's war over like left parties or social-democrats.
getfiscal posted:another thing is that the main maoist "tribal" complaint has tended to be excessive development without benefit - roy calls it the maoists versus the MOUists (memoranda of understanding between the indian government and mining companies). like huge mining operations will open up and displace people without compensation and almost all the money goes to elites. so the basic argument is more "either integrate us in with the benefits or let us alone with the land". and the argument is that the indian state can't choose either because accumulation is central to capitalism, but given that the mineral resources are hugely valuable it seems plausible to me that they could direct a bit of the money if it secures them the areas.
but like outside the people immediately affected by the megaprojects, most poor in india probably have the same views as chinese towards reform - as long as general progress continues and the government throws a bit of money into social guarantees and tries to cut down on corruption a bit, it's not worth going to war over. i mean some people disagree with that but the question is about which whole classes of people would choose people's war over like left parties or social-democrats.
maoism no-worldism 