Even Proudhon and Marx couldn't keep what could have been a solid friendship, all because of one harmless jest made by one man about the other.
It's astounding how the later followers of these early socialist thinkers had far better networking and organizational skills than they did. That still didn't stop the eventual divide that led to The Third International and The Fourth International split. And many splits over and over.
I can say for certain that if India ever fell to Communism, unlikely now, all the existing Communist factions around here will end their currently ongoing alliances, turn against each other, and start a civil war. It will be Maoists fighting Leninists fighting Stalinists fighting anarchists fighting radical social democrats.
"I can say for certain that if India ever fell to Communism, unlikely now, all the existing Communist factions around here will end their currently ongoing alliances, turn against each other, and start a civil war. It will be Maoists fighting Leninists fighting Stalinists fighting anarchists fighting radical social democrats."
well you guys do have the Naxalites. I thought they controlled one of the the providences in that country. I think it was somewhere on the Eastern portion.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
They are exactly the ones about whom I speak.
Did you know what was their worst act of vandalism on private property?
They burnt down a Bengal Communist Party building to rubble.
Maybe I am wrong on my intuition here:
But why the hell is India more kooky left than any of the surrounding Asian lands? If my intuition is correct this is really odd, because all of her Eastern neighbors at least have done very real experiments with leftism. Is it because India has had heavy doses of leftism, but has never gone "full retard" like Mao, Pol Pot, Vietnam, or even the USSR?
See, it's confusing.
Communists are often cosmetic.
Like, former Bengal Chief Minister Jyoti Basu would say Stalin and Mao were great, admirable leaders, but that may simply be a casual statement by someone who is either ignorant of or chooses to ignore the violence and abuses of those leaders. There was no hint in him being a man of brutal violence throughout his life, and I guess he always looked at those two foreigners from a distance as pure symbols, nothing else.
On the other hand, there are some tiny groups of true believers and then even tinier groups of true believers involved intra-Communist disputes and sectarian splits. They are marginal, but they will say nonsense like, "He is not a true Communist who has not shed the blood of a class enemy". One such person was Charu Majumdar, the so-called leader of the first Naxalite outbreak of violence in the 1970s, but he ended his life ridiculed and embarassed by the police as someone not even worth taking seriously. He refused to eat, in protest, while under low security detention, and then died of starvation.
That's a kooky true believer.
On the other hand, many students were inspired to leave college and fight along Majumdar. They were true believers, but then they didn't enjoy a life of spartan living conditions, eating meager amounts of bad food, and standing around with a rifle everyday. That killed the Communist in them, and they all left, saying Screw It.
But why the hell is India more kooky left than any of the surrounding Asian lands?
I have a funny feeling that British university education may have something to do with it.
Ahh yes, British university. That may be the culprit. But yes, cosmetic commies (has a good ring doesn't it), do make life more difficult to analyse, but my thoughts were as a whole, the policies of India are more leftist than her surrounding neighbors. Once again, this may be because she was more in dialgoue with a Western University than most of the others, didn't actually go completely commie, or something else entirely?
Compared to what? Pakistan?
Pakistan, its general population aside, always had a secular elite with highly progressive views typical of British Fabians. Pakistan also had large scale nationalisation programs and blocking of foreign capital and trade, in the name of pure ideology. So did Bangladesh.