Maoists place India 6th on Global Terrorism Index

[Tubbsalot]

Never been proven? What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you live in the same universe as us?

It has actually never been proven, all the supposed evidence is fraud. It is pretty much a conservative think tank. It's a throw back to the days of the yellow peril.

What has never been proven? What is a conservative thinktank? Are you referring to our primary source of knowledge on this issue, "everyone in China"? Do you think everyone's just decided to lie about the period of heaven on earth they experienced briefly during Mao?

[Dracoria]

The USSR was very successful until Khrushchev ruined it.

Pol Pot was his own thing. He was an opportunist who only called himself a Maoist to suck up to Mao.

1) The USSR had begun to degrade before Khrushchev came to power, the fact that Khrushchev came to power in the first place is evidence enough of this.

2) And Mao still liked him. Moreover, Mao began to ally himself with the US, and tried to start shit with the Soviet Union.

The USSR had become increasingly totalitarian under Stalin, who consolidated power and brought the union as close to dictarship as it ever became. Even if they won a large chunk of WWII under him (although maybe if he hadn't purged all those generals they'd have done better), he's probably where the USSR began to unravel. If anything, it became a little more sane under Kruschev.

As for Mao, he was... doing his own thing. The US had also helped China during the last big war before the revolution, and even if it had supported the other side, it had supported China as a state. Probably banking on having an ally further away than an ally right on one's border, especially when the one on one's own border is trying to have more control over your actions. Mao was probably trying to play the two against eachother, much like Nixon did with China and the USSR a few years later, to give himself more space to act. On the economic front though, total failure. As stated before, state capitalism which I'm not terribly fond of at all is what's brought China into the top tier of economic powers.

[Socialist Tera]

It has actually never been proven, all the supposed evidence is fraud. It is pretty much a conservative think tank. It's a throw back to the days of the yellow peril.

What has never been proven? What is a conservative thinktank? Are you referring to our primary source of knowledge on this issue, "everyone in China"? Do you think everyone's just decided to lie about the period of heaven on earth they experienced briefly during Mao?

So, you believe people don't lie for political reasons?

1) The USSR had begun to degrade before Khrushchev came to power, the fact that Khrushchev came to power in the first place is evidence enough of this.

2) And Mao still liked him. Moreover, Mao began to ally himself with the US, and tried to start shit with the Soviet Union.

The USSR had become increasingly totalitarian under Stalin, who consolidated power and brought the union as close to dictarship as it ever became. Even if they won a large chunk of WWII under him (although maybe if he hadn't purged all those generals they'd have done better), he's probably where the USSR began to unravel. If anything, it became a little more sane under Kruschev.

As for Mao, he was... doing his own thing. The US had also helped China during the last big war before the revolution, and even if it had supported the other side, it had supported China as a state. Probably banking on having an ally further away than an ally right on one's border, especially when the one on one's own border is trying to have more control over your actions. Mao was probably trying to play the two against eachother, much like Nixon did with China and the USSR a few years later, to give himself more space to act. On the economic front though, total failure. As stated before, state capitalism which I'm not terribly fond of at all is what's brought China into the top tier of economic powers.

You do know that Stalin was voted in by the party. The dictator thing is a Trotskyist lie. It's as bad as saying Trotsky was Lenin's heir, which is intellectually dishonest.

[Tubbsalot]

What has never been proven? What is a conservative thinktank? Are you referring to our primary source of knowledge on this issue, "everyone in China"? Do you think everyone's just decided to lie about the period of heaven on earth they experienced briefly during Mao?

So, you believe people don't lie for political reasons?

I don't believe one billion people would all lie about the same thing in the exact same way, and foreign visitors would lie as well, no. I think that's a fucking ridiculous idea.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) The USSR had begun to degrade before Khrushchev came to power, the fact that Khrushchev came to power in the first place is evidence enough of this.

2) And Mao still liked him. Moreover, Mao began to ally himself with the US, and tried to start shit with the Soviet Union.

The USSR had become increasingly totalitarian under Stalin, who consolidated power and brought the union as close to dictarship as it ever became. Even if they won a large chunk of WWII under him (although maybe if he hadn't purged all those generals they'd have done better), he's probably where the USSR began to unravel. If anything, it became a little more sane under Kruschev.

As for Mao, he was... doing his own thing. The US had also helped China during the last big war before the revolution, and even if it had supported the other side, it had supported China as a state. Probably banking on having an ally further away than an ally right on one's border, especially when the one on one's own border is trying to have more control over your actions. Mao was probably trying to play the two against eachother, much like Nixon did with China and the USSR a few years later, to give himself more space to act. On the economic front though, total failure. As stated before, state capitalism which I'm not terribly fond of at all is what's brought China into the top tier of economic powers.

The "sanity" factor wasn't what was being discussed, it was theoretical leaning. The best person who could have taken power would probably have been Voroshilov.

[Risottia]

What is a conservative thinktank?

Likely I am.

...

...

...



At least in his mind.

...

...

...

[Risottia]

You do know that Stalin was voted in by the party. The dictator thing is a Trotskyist lie.

Talk about materialistic analysis.

[Socialist Tera]

You do know that Stalin was voted in by the party. The dictator thing is a Trotskyist lie.

Talk about materialistic analysis.

Lenin's testament: "Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance."
So, the problem was, he was too rude.
Here is what he said about Trotsky in the testament: Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.

I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the C.C. I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev [See Vol. 26, pp. 216-19] was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky.

[Risottia]

Talk about materialistic analysis.

Lenin's testament: "Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance."
So, the problem was, he was too rude.
Here is what he said about Trotsky in the testament: Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.

I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the C.C. I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev [See Vol. 26, pp. 216-19] was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky.

Sure, materialism is about "appraisals of the personal qualities" and not about the analysis of power relationships between social groups.

Uh uh.

[Greed and Death]

New Delhi: India has been ranked 6th in the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) report produced on the basis of data obtained and studied from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) for the year 2013 by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), which provides a comprehensive summary of the key global trends and patterns in terrorism over the last 14 years during 2000 and 2013.

IEP calculated the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) for India as 7.86 out of 10 with sixth rank only below the five worst terrorism-hit countries Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria.

While the main reason assigned for the terrorism in these five countries is Islamist extremism but for India the main cause and threat is observed as violent communist activities.

The second edition of the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) report released on November 16 observed that terrorism increased in India by 70 per cent from 2012 to 2013, with the number of deaths increasing from 238 to 404 while the number of attacks increasing with 55 more in 2013 than 2012.

For the year 2013, the report notes 624 incidences to be the terrorist act in India responsible for 404 deaths and 719 injuries to the Indians that include police, private citizens, government servants and others.

It mentions May 25, 2013 attack in Chhattisgarh that killed 17 Congress men including Mahendra Karma, a powerful Congress tribal leader, as the worst terrorist attack in the country that was blamed on Communist Party of India – Maoists (CPI-M).

The report categorizes into three the number of 42 terrorist groups in the country: Islamists, separatists and Communists.

Source: http://twocircles.net/2014nov21/1416548 ... G-tt_mSyCn
What are your thoughts on this? I am personally happy that the Maoists are kicking bourgeois and land lord ass in India.

With cold war 2.0 on the horizon I suppose India would be a great place for a proxy war.

[Socialist Tera]

Lenin's testament: "Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance."
So, the problem was, he was too rude.
Here is what he said about Trotsky in the testament: Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.

These two qualities of the two outstanding leaders of the present C.C. can inadvertently lead to a split, and if our Party does not take steps to avert this, the split may come unexpectedly.

I shall not give any further appraisals of the personal qualities of other members of the C.C. I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev [See Vol. 26, pp. 216-19] was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky.

Sure, materialism is about "appraisals of the personal qualities" and not about the analysis of power relationships between social groups.

Uh uh.

You were trying to tell me that Trotsky is Lenin's heir, proove it. Lenin always hated Trotsky.

[Bojikami]

To be perfectly honest, if they weren't Maoists I might support them.

[United Marxist Nations]

Sure, materialism is about "appraisals of the personal qualities" and not about the analysis of power relationships between social groups.

Uh uh.

You were trying to tell me that Trotsky is Lenin's heir, proove it. Lenin always hated Trotsky.

Where did he say that Trotsky is Lenin's heir?

[Socialist Tera]

You were trying to tell me that Trotsky is Lenin's heir, proove it. Lenin always hated Trotsky.

Where did he say that Trotsky is Lenin's heir?

Talk about materialistic analysis.

He's saying by using materialistic analysis you can prove that Trotsky is Lenin's heir.

[United Marxist Nations]

Where did he say that Trotsky is Lenin's heir?

He's saying by using materialistic analysis you can prove that Trotsky is Lenin's heir.

No, he isn't.

[Rio Cana]

So Maoist of India have been put on the GTI list. Found out that Nepal's Maoist have been taken off the GTI list. They are currently going Capitalist. They think that by going Capitalist that they can achieve there Maoist aims in the long run.

Read this from last year on Nepal's Maoists who were voted in to run the government.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/770482.shtml

[Deusaeuri]

To be perfectly honest, if they weren't Maoists I might support them.

Them being Maoists should be irrelevant. Attempting to use violence to take over a democratic nation is wrong.

[United Marxist Nations]

To be perfectly honest, if they weren't Maoists I might support them.

Them being Maoists should be irrelevant. Attempting to use violence to take over a democratic nation is wrong.

Democratic is a bit subjective. And them being Maoists isn't irrelevant, because Maoism is a silly ideology.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

This, in all honesty, is not correct. While I am a Communist and a Socialist, this is not correct, and never would I condone nor would I support communists to place India 6th for the GTI. Ever. It is beyond what I would ever do.

[Dracoria]

He saw that the USSR became revisionist and betrayed socialism.

Yeah, that's why Mao joined forces with Nixon against the Soviet Union and Vietnam. Because Nixon was the best communist around! Uh uh!

...Are you sure he wasn't? You know, smoothing over relations with the two largest 'communist' powers in the world, leaving the NVA to finish their job in Vietnam, establishing the EPA and other government organizations... Maybe he was secretly the furthest left of all US presidents? Maybe the whole Watergate thing was staged as a smokescreen to prevent some evidence about his true Marxist goals from coming out.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Them being Maoists should be irrelevant. Attempting to use violence to take over a democratic nation is wrong.

Democratic is a bit subjective. And them being Maoists isn't irrelevant, because Maoism is a silly ideology.

You people shouldn't say this in centre-dominated spaces. It gives us all a bad name.

I'm glad the best genres of communist and anarchist thought are all pacifistic.

[United Marxist Nations]

Democratic is a bit subjective. And them being Maoists isn't irrelevant, because Maoism is a silly ideology.

You people shouldn't say this in centre-dominated spaces. It gives us all a bad name.

I'm glad the best genres of communist and anarchist thought are all pacifistic.

Pacifism, too, is silly. The idea that an entire economic system will just roll over and let a new one replace it without a struggle is simply absurd.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

To be perfectly honest, if they weren't Maoists I might support them.

I could applaud people killing part of the Brazilian elite.

But civilians? Teachers? Average workers? Even police officers? Politicians that are not rich, toxic right-wing fucks?

No, that's just as terrible as any other fascist.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

You people shouldn't say this in centre-dominated spaces. It gives us all a bad name.

I'm glad the best genres of communist and anarchist thought are all pacifistic.

Pacifism, too, is silly. The idea that an entire economic system will just roll over and let a new one replace it without a struggle is simply absurd.

My point is actually: Shhhhhh. We're at a disadvantage here.

[Dracoria]

To be perfectly honest, if they weren't Maoists I might support them.

I could applaud people killing part of the Brazilian elite.

But civilians? Teachers? Average workers? Even police officers? Politicians that are not rich, toxic right-wing fucks?

No, that's just as terrible as any other fascist.

I wouldn't even applaud people killing part of my country's elite. Even those I severely disagree with.