Myanmar: Military deploys armored vehicles in major cities - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15156983
Does it mean that Myanmar military junta with Moscow and China´s support will drawn in blooddemocratic protests ? and why moscow is always on despots / juntas side ? whats wrong with the Muscovites?


Myanmar: Military deploys armored vehicles in major cities...

www.dw.com › myanmar-military-deploys-armored-ve...




5 hours ago — News. Myanmar: Military deploys armored vehicles in major cities. The military junta has deployed extra troops and armored vehicles around ...


related:

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/myan ... ke.439962/
#15159518

The working class can place no faith in Suu Kyi and the NLD to defend democratic rights. They represent a faction of the bourgeoisie in Myanmar whose political ambitions and economic interests have been trampled on by the military, which controls substantial sections of the economy. While the NLD wants to end or at least limit the military’s power, it is just as fearful as the generals of a mass movement of the working class that threatens the very basis of capitalist rule.

[...]

Suu Kyi’s intervention provided the junta with the critical breathing space that it desperately needed. She urged the protesters to place their faith in the junta’s promise of elections and right up to a military crackdown on September 18 [1988], called for them to be “patient.” Instead, the military declared martial law and ordered troops to crush the demonstrations. Thousands were killed and many more were detained or fled.

Elections were held in 1990, which the NLD won in a landslide, but having stabilized its rule, the military dismissed the result and placed Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders under arrest.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... n-f23.html
#15159524
Rancid wrote:
Nothing, but how are the workers of the world going to unite if we don't care about each other?



You're implying that military personnel are a part of the workers of the world -- they're not. Militaries defend the bourgeois *ruling class* in each country. Soldiers don't go to war for the sake of higher wages for workers, but rather, for the opposite.
#15159525
Rancid wrote:Nothing, but how are the workers of the world going to unite if we don't care about each other?

Well said indeed.

I guess that the military is the real strength when it comes to countries like this. I don't like the term 'third world', in part because Myanmar is actually 'fourth world' (it was a communist country, so it was to the Soviets what so-callled third-world countries were to the Americans and their allies), and in part because these are shitty terms. But in Myanmar it seems that the military is the real strength, which is a common thing, and has the ability to take over the state. I don't know why they did, though. I simply don't have the information on why they made the move, and would be happy to be enlightened, but I doubt that anyone knows.

There is real repercussions though. I said before that I would go to Myanmar, and I still would, and I qualified it by saying I am a 'crazy dude'. But, most people won't want to go there, and I'd think twice myself, and don't really have much potential of going there, anyway. So there will be economic repercussions. And I'm not talking 'boycott Myanmar' here, but this sort of thing ought to be a consideration of the new governing power.

But that might simply amount to regression, and I wish I knew more about Myanmar.

I've never met anyone from Myanmar. I met a couple Laosians, and I've seen Thailand, and I was once engaged (abortively) to a Vietnamese girl. I don't know Myanmar.

I guess it seems like it is very authoritarian, and perhaps it sucks. But, it probably has a lot of good nature.
#15159526
ckaihatsu wrote:You're implying that military personnel are a part of the workers of the world -- they're not. Militaries defend the bourgeois *ruling class* in each country. Soldiers don't go to war for the sake of higher wages for workers, but rather, for the opposite.

I don't think he was suggesting that. Yeah, I wouldn't call soldiers workers either. But, I don't want to denigrate so I'll just leave it at that.

I think he was emoting dissatisfaction for the state of affairs in Myanmar, and pointing out that there are workers in Myanmar, and that us workers all have a common goal at the end of the day, namely to be able to live a dignified life, and we are unitable in that sense. And I know the Marxist reference, and I am a Marxist, as are you.
#15159527
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're implying that military personnel are a part of the workers of the world -- they're not. Militaries defend the bourgeois *ruling class* in each country. Soldiers don't go to war for the sake of higher wages for workers, but rather, for the opposite.



Crantag wrote:
I don't think he was suggesting that. Yeah, I wouldn't call soldiers workers either. But, I don't want to denigrate so I'll just leave it at that.

I think he was emoting dissatisfaction for the state of affairs in Myanmar, and pointing out that there are workers in Myanmar, and that us workers all have a common goal at the end of the day, namely to be able to live a dignified life, and we are unitable in that sense. And I know the Marxist reference, and I am a Marxist, as are you.



If you're a Marxist, maybe you can clarify the following statement you made -- militaries are the 'real strength' for who, exactly?


Crantag wrote:
I guess that the military is the real strength when it comes to countries like this.
#15159529
ckaihatsu wrote:You're implying that military personnel are a part of the workers of the world -- they're not. Militaries defend the bourgeois *ruling class* in each country. Soldiers don't go to war for the sake of higher wages for workers, but rather, for the opposite.


I do not understand this response. I think you are misunderstanding me.
#15159531
Rancid wrote:
[H]ow are the workers of the world going to unite if we don't care about each other?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're implying that military personnel are a part of the workers of the world -- they're not. Militaries defend the bourgeois *ruling class* in each country. Soldiers don't go to war for the sake of higher wages for workers, but rather, for the opposite.



Rancid wrote:
I do not understand this response. I think you are misunderstanding me.



You implied that soldiers / military personnel should be considered as *workers*, to unite as the working class, but I pointed out that the military represents *nationalist* interests, and not the interests of workers, for higher wages.

You're free to clarify your meaning, of course. Also feel free to specify what part of what I've said it is that you're not understanding.
#15159533
ckaihatsu wrote:If you're a Marxist, maybe you can clarify the following statement you made -- militaries are the 'real strength' for who, exactly?

I'm not a doctrinal Marxist.

I would call you a Stalinist, based on this quip here.

I am a Marxist, in the sense that I think Marx made the most accurate analysis of political economy, and I attempted a PhD in economics (though ultimately dropped out after my funding expired--got the masters) studying Marxist economics.

That is no attempt to throw rank. Truth be told, I have only read the first volume of Capital through and through.

And it is a great book, by the way. It is good reading. Anyone should read it.

But, you misunderstood me. I was talking in the context of Myanmar.

Moreover, this is actually sort of a Marxist analysis here, but in countries which are less developed than say the global power brokers (I'm really trying to avoid the bourgeois terminologies) the military is often the real power, that is how it is, and it is because they have guns. Lenin and Trotsky certainly understood this fact, to a T.
#15159536
ckaihatsu wrote:You implied that soldiers / military personnel should be considered as *workers*, to unite as the working class, but I pointed out that the military represents *nationalist* interests, and not the interests of workers, for higher wages.

You're free to clarify your meaning, of course. Also feel free to specify what part of what I've said it is that you're not understanding.

Don't give him homework. I could be wrong, but I thought he was responding to me. He wasn't publishing a dissertation, he was just making quick remarks. I didn't see him call military men workers. But, you're cool, man. I am also named Chris. How do you come up with all those graphics?

I could be wrong. I don't think Rancid is one to be purged though, lol.
#15159537
Crantag wrote:
I'm not a doctrinal Marxist.

I would call you a Stalinist, based on this quip here.



It wasn't a quip, and you're not providing any reasoning or explanation for your characterization of me.


Crantag wrote:
I am a Marxist, in the sense that I think Marx made the most accurate analysis of political economy, and I attempted a PhD in economics (though ultimately dropped out after my funding expired--got the masters) studying Marxist economics.

That is no attempt to throw rank. Truth be told, I have only read the first volume of Capital through and through.

And it is a great book, by the way. It is good reading. Anyone should read it.

But, you misunderstood me. I was talking in the context of Myanmar.

Moreover, this is actually sort of a Marxist analysis here, but in countries which are less developed than say the global power brokers (I'm really trying to avoid the bourgeois terminologies) the military is often the real power, that is how it is, and it is because they have guns. Lenin and Trotsky certainly understood this fact, to a T.



Here's an elaboration of the societal-historical dynamic that you're indicating....



Elections were held in 1990, which the NLD won in a landslide, but having stabilized its rule, the military dismissed the result and placed Suu Kyi and other NLD leaders under arrest.

The actions of Suu Kyi and the NLD were not a mistake or an aberration. Rather, as Leon Trotsky established in his Theory of Permanent Revolution, the bourgeoisie in countries of a belated capitalist development, such as Burma, is organically incapable of meeting the democratic aspirations and social needs of working people.

The tragic historical experiences of the last century have demonstrated time and again that faced with a mass movement that threatens to undermine bourgeois rule, the capitalist class will come together to support the crushing of protests and strikes through the most ruthless methods. The only social force capable of carrying out a consistent struggle for democratic rights is the working class as part of the broader struggle to refashion society to meet the pressing needs of the majority—that is, along socialist lines.

As in 1988, workers and youth in Myanmar should develop their own independent forms of organization and turn to their class brothers and sisters internationally. The deepening crisis of capitalism globally is fuelling a resurgence of the class struggle around the world as is evident, for example, in neighbouring Thailand where protests have resumed against the military-backed government.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... n-f23.html
#15159538
Crantag wrote:
Don't give him homework. I could be wrong, but I thought he was responding to me.



Rancid quoted my words, so he was responding to me.


Crantag wrote:
He wasn't publishing a dissertation, he was just making quick remarks. I didn't see him call military men workers.



Well, he certainly *implied* it.


Crantag wrote:
But, you're cool, man. I am also named Chris. How do you come up with all those graphics?



Best name *ever*.

I often break a sweat doing those graphics. (grin)


Crantag wrote:
I could be wrong. I don't think Rancid is one to be purged though, lol.



Hmmmm, all he has to do is quit thinking that the military is somehow part of the world's working class. That's all.
#15159539
@ckaihatsu

You won't get disagreement from me on this.

By typing shit I am not advocating it. But, the fact is the military is a powerful force, which is able to take over the Myanmar government if they please, and that's what they did. And that is not exclusive to Myanmar, it has also occurred in Africa, in South and Central America, etc. That was my point. The military is an appendage of the state, and has the capability to overtake the state. Hell, it's even true in the USA, in actuality. But, it is more likely in countries such as Myanmar.

That was my point. And this is indeed a somewhat Marxist analysis, or at least it would be derided as such in polite company.
#15159547
Crantag wrote:
@ckaihatsu

You won't get disagreement from me on this.

By typing shit I am not advocating it. But, the fact is the military is a powerful force, which is able to take over the Myanmar government if they please, and that's what they did. And that is not exclusive to Myanmar, it has also occurred in Africa, in South and Central America, etc. That was my point. The military is an appendage of the state, and has the capability to overtake the state. Hell, it's even true in the USA, in actuality. But, it is more likely in countries such as Myanmar.

That was my point. And this is indeed a somewhat Marxist analysis, or at least it would be derided as such in polite company.



Okay, but now you're sharing Rancid's fatalism. I'll remind of the following from history:



The United States Declaration of Independence (formally The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America) is the pronouncement adopted by the Second Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 4, 1776. The Declaration explained why the Thirteen Colonies at war with the Kingdom of Great Britain regarded themselves as thirteen independent sovereign states, no longer under British rule.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... dependence



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're implying that the entire world needs to acquiesce to Myanmar's military -- what's it ever done for you?



Rancid wrote:
Nothing, but how are the workers of the world going to unite if we don't care about each other?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're implying that military personnel are a part of the workers of the world -- they're not. Militaries defend the bourgeois *ruling class* in each country. Soldiers don't go to war for the sake of higher wages for workers, but rather, for the opposite.



---


Rancid wrote:
I did not.



Then you weren't really responding to the words of mine that you quoted -- instead of following-up, you interjected a different idea that had nothing to do with the preceding exchanges up to that point, effectively a non-sequitur.

The detachment of meaning from the preceding makes your meaning *ambiguous*, by being tangential.
Board Games

Looks intriguing Heisenberg! I have never heard of[…]

So, are you convinced by the above that mainstr[…]

Cuthbert the Caterpillar

https://i.imgur.com/qzjth1P.jpg […]

I'm a little confused here Potemkin But now you […]