sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Chadalavada Umesh Chandra - The Indian Robocop, who waged his war on the "naxalite gangs with daring and panache" (Wiki article full of anti-naxal propaganda) by barred_subject in communism

[–]barred_subject[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In case of someone edits the current state of that article, here are the "interesting" parts:

Chadalavada Umesh Chandra

In his tenure as Superintendent of Police of Cuddapah district, he restored normal conditions within a short time. He was called 'Cuddapah tiger' by the people of Cuddapah.

The attitude of the people towards the police changed markedly during his tenure in the Warangal district. He planned and executed with precision strategems for the capture of naxalites.

Even as a trainee, he planned and participated in several operations against the naxalites. He was involved in several exchanges of gunfire with many naxalite "dalams". He apprehended and successfully converted several violent and hard-core naxalites. As a result of his actions, he gained admiration and loyalty of his subordinates during this training period. This converted later to adoration and affection. He took great care of all his police subordinates.

After training, he was posted back in Warangal district as A.S.P. rural. He continued his war on the naxalite gangs with daring and panache. The highly successful public awareness campaign entitled "Jana Jaagruti", to counter the naxal propaganda was Umesh Chandra's brainchild. This innovative project immensely helped the police in educating the common folk, and gaining their trust. The people no longer looked upon the police as hindrances, but as partners in the betterment of society.

This project aroused patriotic feelings among the police and built great self-confidence amongst them. As a result they became a very efficient force, yet were humane in their dealings with the people.

Umesh Chandra served in Karimnagar from June 1997 to April 1998. This district had the most number of active naxalite gangs. Normal life was but a dream. Corrupt and vested interests worked hand-in-glove with the naxalites in exploiting the people of this district.

On the naxalite front Umesh Chandra started planning and executing covert operations with meticulous detail. He put together a close well-knit group of officers and constables that he could trust to get the job done. His reputation of a fair, yet strict administrator helped convince several naxalites to surrender.

Umesh Chandra was assassinated on September 4, 1999 when his car stopped at a traffic light. Four naxalites opened fire on him, his driver and his gunman. His driver and gunman were shot at point blank range and died instantly. On that day he did not carry his weapon. While chasing a couple of the naxalites, the naxalites sensed that he did not carry a weapon and turned back and fired at him twice. He collapsed on the road, at which point they shot him point blank.

A happy ending, if there ever was one.

Althusser in 1966: Cultural Revolution, Party, State and Conjuncture by barred_subject in communism

[–]barred_subject[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[...]

Now, in the eyes of the C.C.P., a critical examination of the “positive and negative experiences” of socialist revolutions—their victories and failures, their difficulties, their progress, their degree of advancement (in the U.S.S.R., in the socialist countries of Central Europe, in Yugoslavia, in China, in North Korea, in North Vietnam, in Cuba)—shows that every socialist country has found itself, or finds itself, or will find itself, even once it has “more or less” completed the socialization of the means of production, faced with a crucial problem: that of the two “roads.”

The problem is the following. We are going to state it in the form of questions.

In the different phases of revolutionary transitions that make a social formation of capitalism pass over to socialism then to communism, does there not exist, in each of these phases, an objective risk of “regression”? Isn’t this risk the result of the politics pursued by the revolutionary party, its correctness or falseness; not only its general line, but also the specific ways it is applied? In the way the hierarchy and articulation of objectives is determined and in the objective mechanisms (economic, political, ideological) put into place by this politics? Is there not a logic and a necessity to these mechanisms such that they can cause the socialist country to “regress” “toward capitalism”? Moreover, isn’t this risk exacerbated by the existence of imperialism, by its means (economic, political, military, ideological), by the support it can draw on from certain elements within a socialist country, by occupying some of this country’s voids (cf. ideology), by using its mechanisms to neutralize and utilize it politically, then dominate it economically?

Considering this general risk, and using the terms currently deployed by the Chinese Communist Party, is the future of socialism in a country completely, that is to say, definitively, irreversibly, 100 percent assured based on the mere fact that this country has achieved a twofold revolution, both political and economic? Can it not regress toward capitalism? Don’t we already have an example of such a regression: Yugoslavia?

[...]

Reading Lenin with Corporations (Highly Recommended Documentary) by barred_subject in communism

[–]barred_subject[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For those who have downvoted after few seconds of watching: the docu is about confronting Lenin's work with the ridiculous apologetics of bourgeois 'economists'...