fela fan said:
'Working class' is not a term in use in this part of the world. In burma you have the generals, those they have paid off, and then just everyone else. There is on class ideology or inter-class injustice going on. Just the vicious thugs vs everyone else.
That's why i said your terminology wasn't appropriate here, and unfortunately reads in a rather insensitive way, considering the history of burmese people.
Thanks for all contributions here - especially the likes of Purves and the news links
This may not be the most appropriate thread for me to re-raise this question - updates on news and information are more important obviously - but... - I wondered what you meant here fela? (and the other person who backed the view up with accusations of 'eurocentric' views being imposed on what they see as a completely seperate situation). What do you feel the history of the Burmese people is? (I agree on the need for sensitivity re terminology that has been very much mis-used by the military dictatorship - but use of terminology is not the same as actual history).
This is my very limited reading of the post-war history or Burma - The regime, newly emerged from British domination and where the ruling class was incapable of successfully 'holding the country together',faced a series of rebellions and wars. The army was formed from the 'Anti-Fascist Peoples Freedom League', which described itself as 'socialist'. With China as a model next door (this was just after the Chinese revolutionary movement had resulted in the coming to power of the CP dictatorship there), the army leaders tired of the incapacity of the landowners and capitalists to solve the problems of Burma. Basing themselves on the passive (then....) support of the workers and peasants, they organised a coup, expropriated the landowners and capitalists and established Burma as a "Burmese Buddhist Socialist State". In effect, a bonapartist regime was established that was not (as traditionally the case...) in defense of private ownership, but, given the then balance of world forces, using the control of exopropriated property to create their own power base. You may not like the terminology, but this describes a development of the marxist idea of colonial revolution and the idea of a deformed workers state.
The political situation after the withdraw of the British was - a weak indigenous boss class, the army using language of 'socialism' and the left democratic/nationalist parties using the language of 'socialism' in a completely different way (the leaders of which included the likes of Aung San Suu Kyi's father. The likes of Aung San's father recognised some similarities of condition, of class interests. Was he 'eurocentric'?
Hopefully you can expand on this and correct me where you feel I am wrong
As i said elsewhere, this is how I see the situation today:
Burma has one of the worst records of human rights abuses in the world, including the systematic use of rape and torture, forced labour (including child labour) and violent national oppression (of the Karen and other peoples). While the military absorbs 40% of the state budget, spending on health care is minimal and, in a country that once had the highest literacy rate, education standards have plummeted through lack of government funds.
The level of poverty and hunger means millions of families having no more than one meal a day. Once known as Asia’s rice bowl, Burma cannot sustain its own people. One third of the population are malnourished or physically underdeveloped.
Yet the top twelve military officers who form the junta live in luxury in the newly-built capital city – Naypyidaw - carved out of the jungle, 320 kilometres north of Rangoon. Much of the generals’ income derives from bribery, corruption and drug trafficking, especially of heroin. Anuj Chopra, who writes for the (London) Sunday Telegraph, commented, the new capital “offers a secure bolt-hole should the ongoing protests escalate in Rangoon…They are running away from their own people”.
What is the cause of these differences between the majority of the population and that of the ruling cliche?
I am wondering how UR's perspective is supposed to be eurocentric? how does it not fit the Burmese situation? - because he is using the term 'working class/people' and 'pesants'?
Are there no classes (or at least 'caste') interests involved in the reasons behind this ongoing and further unfolding nightmare for the vast majority of the Burmese people?
Can someone explain to me the why the situation is so 'unique' in Burma?