Bangkok
is in flames as the counter-revolutionary violence in Thailand
reaches a bloody climax. The long-awaited assault by the Thai army
has already taken place, and will not cease until every trace of the
protest has been wiped out. No-one can be sure of the number of
casualties, but the final figure will certainly be more than what the
authorities have admitted to so far. It seems that some red-shirts
have responded by setting fire to banks, shopping malls and other
buildings in the city, and there are reports that protests and
violence is erupting in other parts of the city.
At
Rajprasong they are singing: "This
is a class war to sweep away the autocracy"
For
months the streets of central Bangkok have been taken over by a mass
protest movement organised by the UDD, the United Front for Democracy
Against Dictatorship, commonly known as the Red Shirts. This mass
movement of the poor and dispossessed has shaken the power structure
of the ruling elite and threatens the future of the Thai monarchy
itself. Many of them are supporters of the former prime minister,
Thaksin Shinawatra, who was overthrown in a coup nearly four years
ago.
The
prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva complains of “chaos” and
“anarchy”, but he conveniently forgets that he came to power by
similar means. His government was installed by the military, and is
the product of a military coup in 2006 and various judicial coups.
Between 2006 and 2008, and the yellow-shirted thugs of the Democrat
Party boycotted elections that Thaksin Shinawatra, was likely to win.
This resulted in the annulment of the election. Then, when a military
interregnum failed to keep Thaksin’s supporters out of power, the
monarchist reactionary mobs blockaded government buildings and
Bangkok’s airport to provide the excuse for a coup.
Abhisit’s
seizure of power was the negation of democracy but it was
conveniently ignored by the West. The demand for new elections is an
elementary democratic demand. But it is not acceptable to the Thai
oligarchy. The attitude of the so-called democrats in Washington and
London to dictatorship is determined by their class interests.
The
Abhisit government represents the ruling oligarchy, the reactionary
Thai monarchy and the military. That suited the West very well, as it
appeared to offer solid guarantees for their investments in Thailand
– one of the most important economies in Asia. Those same
hypocrites enthusiastically backed the so-called Orange Revolution in
the Ukraine, and constantly denounced the alleged “autocratic
regime” of Hugo Chavez. But they have reacted to the democratic
protest movement in Thailand with a deafening silence.
The
Red Shirts
Photo by
Ratchaprasong.
The
Red Shirts, a loose anti-government coalition, looked to Thaksin
Shinawatra as a point of reference. A billionaire tycoon, Thaksin,
now safely in exile in Montenegro, is an unlikely candidate for the
leader of a revolution. Critics point to the violation of human
rights under his government. But he also carried out a number of
measures in the interests of the poor, especially the rural poor in
the north of the country.
Lacking
a clear leadership, party or programme, the masses look towards
individual leaders who seem to personify their aspirations. The poor
farmers have a burning hatred for the wealthy urban ruling elite that
dominates, exploits and oppresses them. The name of Thaksin acted as
a rallying point for the opposition to the present regime, especially
the poor peasants who derived some benefit from his rule. However, in
reality, he is an accidental figure, like Father Gapon or Kerensky at
different stages in the Russian Revolution.
Certain
middle class western intellectuals confess that they cannot
understand why thousands of poor men and women can choose to fight
and die on the streets of Bangkok for the cause of an exiled
billionaire tycoon. Some have even characterised the movement as
“fascist”. This shows a complete lack of understanding. By
contrast, the excellent reports by Giles Ji Ungpakorn, a left wing
intellectual and dissidenter, exiled in London, have given a very
accurate and truthful account of the movement.
The
people who are fighting and dying on the streets of Bangkok are not
doing so to support one ambitious bourgeois politician against
another. They are fighting for a fundamental change in society. Maybe
they do not know exactly what they want. But they know very well what
they do not want. They do not want poverty, hunger and unemployment.
They do not want the rule of a corrupt and reactionary oligarchy. And
they do not want the Abhisit government.
The
demand for new elections therefore was a natural starting point for
their protest. But once the masses had been set in motion, the
movement acquired a new dynamic. The participation of workers,
revolutionary youth and the urban poor has transformed the movement,
which can not be described as a rabble of ignorant farmers, as the
reactionaries try to portray them.
In
recent weeks the influence of Thaksin Shinawatra appears to have been
pushed into the background. The oppressed workers and poor farmers
are finding a voice and expressing deep-seated grievances, not just
against the present government but against a society that is
fundamentally unjust. That is why the masses have shown such
tremendous revolutionary determination and willingness to fight and
make sacrifices.
However,
the same determination is not being shown by the leaders. The leaders
are not poor workers and peasants with nothing to lose but their
lives, but middle class intellectuals who want greater democracy and
less military influence in the country’s political affairs. They
are leaning on the mass movement in order to put pressure on the
government to make concessions. They constantly appeal for
negotiations. But they have set in motion forces that they can only
control with great difficulty. The mass movement now has a life of
its own.
The
protesters soon acquired a sense of their own power. Despite its lack
of a clear programme (or maybe because of it), the movement attracted
to its banner all the oppressed and exploited sections of Thai
society. The determination and militancy of the protesters has grown,
and with it, a desire for a radical change in society that goes far
beyond a mere change of prime minister. This
is now a struggle between rich and poor – a struggle between the
classes.
The
fight for democracy
The
oligarchy rightly fears the forces that have been set in motion by
the pro-democracy movement, which has attracted to its side the
workers, the youth, the peasants and the poor and oppressed layers of
town and countryside: in a word, all the living forces of Thai
society. Against them was ranged all that was corrupt, degenerate,
outmoded and reactionary.
This
is a struggle between rich and poor, between the haves and haves-not.
The red-shirts are described as a “pro-democracy” movement, and
in one sense that is true. There is a burning desire for democracy,
which is expressed in a fierce hatred of the Ahbisit regime.
Beginning with democratic demands, they will begin to relate
political injustice with social injustice: indeed, for the workers
and peasants the two things are inseparable.
This
may have begun as the struggle between two groups of rival
politicians, but it has now been filled with revolutionary class
content. Once they were brought to their feet, the masses inevitably
began to express their own demands. The immediate tasks of the
revolution (for that is what it is) are democratic in character. But
the fight for democracy, if it is to succeed, must lead to the
sweeping away of the entire existing edifice of Thai political life.
The
fight for democracy is identified in the eyes of the masses with a
far broader fight for social justice and equality. That is understood
by the reactionaries and the most determined elements in the protest
movement. As usual, in the middle there are some who imagine that
everything can be settled peacefully, through negotiation and deals.
But this is impossible.
There
is no room in this situation for compromise, and the “centre”, as
happens so often in history, will be swept to one side by the rising
tide of class struggle. The movement can only succeed if it is led by
the most determined elements: men and women who are prepared to fight
to the end, as courageous men and women are fighting for their rights
on the streets of Bangkok.
The
eruption of the masses
The
army of red-shirt protesters converged on Bangkok on 14 March, and
for two months they have paralysed the capital, protesting at the
refusal of the military-backed Abhisit government to resign and hold
fresh elections. The unelected government continued to rule. But it
had lost control of the streets. The
Economist (May
16th ) described the situation in Bangkok:
“Thousands of protesters, many
of them bussed in from the countryside, are sleeping in the shadows
of luxury hotels and shopping malls. […] They have occupied a large
area of central Bangkok for the past month to force the prime
minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, to dissolve parliament and hold new
elections. The government, businesses and many Bangkok residents want
the red shirts out. Threats and emergency laws have not worked. Peace
talks appeared to bear fruit, but fell apart quickly.”
The
ruling class was increasingly alarmed by the eruption of the masses
on the streets of the capital. The government seemed powerless,
stricken by a strange paralysis of the will. The situation became
more serious by the day, almost by the hour. There were elements of
dual power present in the situation. By their defiant actions, the
masses were issuing a direct challenge to the government: “who
rules, you or us?”
The
government first attempted to defuse the situation by offering
concessions. Abhisit held out the olive branch of early elections in
November as part of a deal to end the confrontation. It seemed that
some protest leaders were ready to go home on the strength of these
promises. But for the majority of protesters this was a case of too
little and too late. They demanded a fixed date for the dissolution
of parliament and said they would continue their protests.
Abhisit
was coming under pressure from hard-liners to use force to crush the
protests. When red-shirt leaders amended their demands the government
immediately withdrew its offer. For them, the offer of new elections
was far too much, whereas for the masses, radicalised by the protest
movement, it was far too little. In the words of The
Economist:
“They distrust leaders who
talked of compromise after so much blood had been spilled. Far better
to keep fighting and keep up the pressure on the government.
Hard-line red-shirt protesters are unlikely to want to give up so
easily.”
Reaction prepares
The
government deliberately exaggerated the violence of the Red Shirts’
burning tyres and home-made rockets, repeatedly referring to them as
”terrorists” preparing an armed rebellion, in order to justify the
army’s deadly use of snipers and eventual crushing of the protest.
The first test of strength came on 10 April, when 25 people were
killed and hundreds injured on when troops tried to clear protesters
in Bangkok. On that occasion, several soldiers were among the dead,
apparently at the hands of black-clad gunmen with army-issue weapons.
The
bloody crackdown on 10 April 2010 showed the lying hypocrisy behind
Abhisit’s “road map” for reconciliation. He had no intention of
restoring democracy in Thailand. There were only two outcomes
possible: either the masses would sweep away this government – and
the reactionary monarchy that lies behind it – or military reaction
would restore “order” with bullets and bayonets.
The
prosperous middle class of Bangkok fumed at the disruption of their
lives, the occupation of their streets and the disruption of their
luxurious shopping malls. The royalist yellow-Shirts were threatening
to resume their protest and support the use of repressive laws and
violence against the mass movement.
The
prospect of a bloody denouement was clear to all. Foreign embassies
closed their doors, and several countries, including the United
States, warned citizens not to travel to Bangkok. The Department of
Foreign Affairs advised people to reconsider travel to anywhere in
Thailand because of ”widening political unrest and civil disorder
occurring in Bangkok and other parts of the country”.
All
this indicated that the Thai army was planning to begin a final
offensive. Yet the government forces remained indecisive. The army
avoided a frontal assault and tried instead to slowly strangle the
Red Shirts’ central city protest site. The army put up barricades and
strung razor wire across all roads leading to the protest camp,
blocking supplies and leaving few ways in and out.
They
declared two parts of the city, at Din Daeng and Bon Kai, “live-fire
zones”. Senior generals threatened that anybody walking into those
zones would be shot on sight. The response of the Red Shirts was to
extend the territory they control across the city, hastily
constructing new barricades made from tyres and car parts, and where
threatened, setting them on fire. Several houses were also burned,
and there were reports closed businesses and buildings in the
no-man’s land between the Red Shirts and the army were being
attacked.
Divisions
in the army
The
class struggle in Thailand has now reached an unprecedented
fever-pitch. With adequate leadership, the mass movement could have
overthrown oligarchic rule. The regime could feel the ground shaking
under its feet. On the one hand the revolutionary mass movement was
growing by the hour, on the other hand, there are clearly divisions
in the army and the police. There have been many reports of
fraternisation or even of demonstrators overrunning army barracks.
Unfortunately
the leaders of the protest vacillated and showed that they were not
prepared to go to the end. This enabled the counter-revolutionaries
to re-take the initiative.
The
army was clearly afraid of a direct clash with the Red Shirts. The
proof of this is that, until this morning, they had not taken any
territory from them, but instead tried to strangle the protesters by
cutting off the supply of food and water, and cutting power and
communications to their camp. But this was not enough to end the
protest. Sooner or later they had to launch a final, violent, push to
remove them.
But
there was a problem. Ordinary conscript soldiers are always reluctant
to shoot unarmed civilians. That is a hundred times more true of a
conscript army, many of whom are themselves from poor peasant
families. The officers therefore used selected snipers hiding in the
tower blocks to shoot demonstrators.
One
of the victims was Khattiya Sawasdipol, a former general of the Thai
army who became the chief of the red-shirt militia. He vigorously
opposed the “peace deal” that left Abhisit in power. On the night
of May 13th, a sniper’s bullet cut him down. He died in hospital.
The army denies involvement, but nobody believes it. Still the
red-shirts stood their ground with admirable courage, although the
army was now firing live rounds, leaving scores of people dead and
injured.
The
cold-blooded murder of Khattiya Sawasdipol enraged his supporters and
sparked off the new wave of fighting around the protest site’s
perimeter, which spread elsewhere. Whole districts of Bangkok were
shut down, and the unrest was gathering strength away from Thailand’s
capital. A state of emergency was declared in five provinces on
Saturday, bringing the total to 22: nearly a third of the country.
There
have been pictures on the Internet showing the angry people seising
an army truck, while the soldiers do nothing to stop them. On this
occasion, the insurgents seised the vehicle and guns, shouting: “Long
live the people! Down with the Dictatorship!” On April 28 there
were reports that:
"Red Shirts have captured
some soldiers who tried to sneak into the protest at Rajprasong. It
is thought that they had orders to shoot the Red Shirt leaders. The
prisoners are being treated well."
The
government announced a curfew. This brought a wave of anger from
demonstrators. However, the army later backed down on the proposal,
saying it was “unnecessary”. It was clear that the army and the
government were still hesitating before striking the fatal blow. We
also know that this hesitation was not dictated by sentimental or
humanitarian considerations but by fear.
Counter-revolutionary
offensive
This
was a situation that could not be maintained. On the one hand the
government had lost control of the streets and had lost its nerve. On
the other hand, the leaders of the red-shirts could not summon up the
courage to call a general strike and move to take power. The lack of
decisive initiative on the part of the leaders of the protest enabled
Abhisit to recover his nerve. In the end, the government, pressed by
the reactionaries, decided to go onto the offensive.
Abhisit repeated
his determination to end the protests and gave warning that losses
“will have to be endured”. This meant that a green light was
being given for a crackdown by the army – irrespective of the loss
of life. The army encircled the site. Demonstrators were being urged
to leave, with priority given to women, children and the elderly.
Those that stayed faced an uncertain fate.
The situation of
the protesters was very difficult. Supplies of food and water were
running low, and red-shirt reinforcements were being prevented from
joining the protests. The army had a clear advantage in terms of
superior weaponry and discipline. But the masses had an even more
serious weapon: their willingness to die. This steely determination
unnerved the ordinary Thai soldiers and made them hesitant and
reluctant fighters.
On 13 May the
government launched an attack on the red-Shirt protesters. In the
beginning they were cautious, nervous about the outcome and doubtful
about the loyalty of the troops. Western journalists reported that
the soldiers seemed nervous, even frightened. They fired into the air
and threw tear gas bombs. The red-shirts were not intimidated, but
replied by building barricades, throwing stones and lumps of
concrete, firing slings and home-made rockets and Molotov cocktails.
The big question
was: what would be the result of an open clash? From a military point
of view, the question answered itself. There was no way that
improvised barricades and homemade rockets could stand against the
discipline and firepower of a modern army. But this is not a purely
military question. In the first place, behind the tanks and guns
stand men, who can be powerfully influenced by the sight of a people
that has risen. The cohesion of the army itself is not something that
can be taken for granted.
One Internet
report stated:
“Sporadic clashes are occurring
in Bangkok and the provinces. The Government is desperately trying to
cling to power by murdering pro-democracy demonstrators. Splits
are appearing in the security forces with reports of some police or
army units returning fire with the advancing troops. This is indeed a
civil war situation and the Government cannot hope to control the
situation.”
(My emphasis, AW)
Is mediation possible?
Unfortunately,
the leaders of the protests had no real perspective. They called for
UN-brokered talks. This had no chance of success. In the war between
rich and poor there can be no referees or arbiters. There are no
rules in this game. The only rule is that, in the end, one class must
win and the other class must lose.
The
government has rejected all offers of negotiation, saying that talks
would only begin when the protesters abandoned their barricaded camp
in Bangkok. On Sunday, the Thai government rejected the call by the
Red Shirts for a ceasefire and UN-moderated talks. For its part, the
United Nations has not even responded to this request.
Speaking
in a televised address that was shown on all Thai channels, Abhisit
said:
"As long as the Red Shirt
protest continues, armed terrorists will remain and hurt people and
authorities. Risks and violence will escalate. I insist that ending
the protest is the only way to prevent losses.
"We cannot allow unlawful
elements to take Bangkok hostage. We will not allow an armed group
unhappy with the government to attack and hurt authorities. There is
no turning back in our efforts to maintain a legal state. Losses will
have to be endured. It is the only way to righteousness."
The
victims of the counter-revolutionary violence are unarmed protesters.
Officials say soldiers have a right to fire in self-defence. But
eyewitnesses speak of trigger-happy soldiers and snipers firing from
rooftops. Abhisit defended the army’s actions: ”The government must
move forward,” he said. ”We cannot retreat because we are doing
things that will benefit the entire country. If we want to see an end
to the loss of life, the only way is to have the protesters end their
protest.”
The
government was playing games with the protesters’ leaders,
appearing to offer concessions while systematically preparing for a
bloody showdown. In order to distract public and international
attention from these plans, Abhisit offered new elections – but
only in November, and on condition that the mass protest ended. Even
if the November election was held, why should one expect that the
royalists would not overturn an unwelcome result, either by more
street politics or by corrupt judges?
Sensing
a trap, the Red Shirt leaders prevaricated. The Prime Minister
immediately declared that his offer had been rejected, withdrew the
”road map” to elections, and called in the army, which he had been
intending to do all along.
Heroism
of the insurgents
The
deadly street battles between security forces and red-shirt
protesters showed no sign of abating yesterday. On the contrary,
fighting had spread to other parts of the capital, and also to the
provinces. Nor was the firing all one way. Reporters referred to
black-clad young men armed with guns returning the fire of the army.
Other reports (unconfirmed) say there is
evidence of
some military or police returning fire in the direction of the army.
The Sydney
Morning Herald
described the scene:
“But on the streets, there is
fear. Fear is in the eyes of the Red Shirts’ guards standing
defiantly, but nervously, at the fortified entrance to the camp.
“Full of bravado, Annan
demonstrates his slingshot, pulling the rubber back and forth, aimed
at a sniper, real or imaginary, in a nearby building. At his feet is
a pile of rocks and lumps of concrete to hurl at oncoming troops. In
his back pocket is a homemade rocket launcher fashioned from bamboo
and scrap metal, to shoot fireworks at soldiers and police
helicopters. They are a feeble riposte to the rifles and M-16s of the
soldiers crouched behind sandbags and razor wire a few hundred metres
away.
“The barricade behind which
Annan stands, built up over weeks of protest, is a enormous wall of
tyres and sharpened bamboo staves, four metres high. It reeks of
petrol. Expecting troops to march on them any day, the Red Shirts
have filled their barricades with fuel, ready to burn their city down
before they give it up.
”’We are getting killed. We are
all scared to get killed, but we stay.’
“But fear is written, too, on
the faces of the troops on Rama IV Road, at the southern end of the
Red Shirts’ zone. Over loudspeakers, they plead with protesters for
peace. ‘We are the people’s army. We are just doing our duty for
the nation. Brothers and sisters, let’s talk together.’ There is
little hope of that.”
Under
these conditions it was astonishing to see the tremendous courage and
resilience of ordinary men and women: farmer’s boys, shop
assistants, builders’ labourer’s and market women – all
standing shoulder to shoulder in the face of bullets and armoured
vehicles. This is the final answer to all the sceptics, cowards and
traitors who doubt the ability of the working class to change
society.
Despite fearful
odds, the red-shirts stood firm, looking death straight in the eyes
without flinching. An internet report by a Thai dissident living in
London states: "The deputy chairman of the Bangkok Metropolitan
Electricity Workers Union has brought people to join the Red Shirt
protest at Rajprasong" — Red Shirt leader just said that "We
are like Spartacus!!!"
Weakness of
leadership
As the death toll
from four days of bloody street battles rose to 67 and hundreds more
injured, the army demanded that women and children leave the area.
But yesterday, save for a small group of elderly women and some
children, the offer was largely ignored. The protesters were prepared
to stick it out till the end. At
Rajprasong they are singing "This is a class war to sweep away
the autocracy”.
Unfortunately,
the same determination was not shown by the leadership. Some Red
Shirt leaders indicated they would be prepared to return to the
negotiating table, but only if troops were immediately withdrawn from
the streets and the UN brought in to mediate: "We want the UN to
moderate it because we do not trust anyone else. There is no group in
Thailand that is neutral enough," said Nattawut Saikua, one of
the main leaders of the protest. This was naïve in the extreme.
The situation has
gone far beyond the limits of legal and parliamentary institutions,
which can only succeed to the degree that the decisive majority of
society recognises them as valid. But in the last analysis, all the
fundamental questions will be settled outside parliament: in the
streets and factories and in the army barracks. Australian
journalists Walker and Farrelly wrote:
”Thailand’s fatal flaw is its
loss of faith in the electoral process. This loss of faith has opened
the way for hardliners to pursue violent alternatives. Violence on
all sides is deplorable, but remember that those who condemn the Red
Shirt provocations most vigorously are also those who have
consistently denied the legitimacy of their peaceful statements at
the ballot box.”
The
government treated the demand for UN intervention with contempt: "If
they really want to talk, they should not set conditions like asking
us to withdraw troops," Korbsak Sabhavasu, the Prime Minister’s
secretary-general, said. There was no real prospect of mediation.
Behind this test of strength and willpower there is a clash between
mutually exclusive interests. The government was determined to remove
the protesters, and the latter were equally determined to stay where
they were.
Abhisit
warned that his government would not “bow to demonstrators”, and
the army would move to crush the protesters. Thailand’s foreign
minister, Kasit Piromya, criticised foreign diplomats for even
talking to the red shirts, who he called “terrorists”. This is
the authentic voice of the Thai ruling class. It is the voice of a
class that is prepared to go to the end in defence of its class
privileges.
But
what of the leaders of the protest? From the beginning the leaders of
the Red Shirts made repeated offers to negotiate with the government,
all of which were rejected. The government understands what the
leaders of the protest do not understand: that this movement poses a
fundamental threat to the ruling class, which can only be met by the
use of force.
The
rank and file was prepared to fight. But at the last minute the UDD
leadership announced from the stage that they were giving themselves
up to the police and ending the protest because they “cannot stand
to see more deaths”. By showing weakness the leaders gave the green
light to the army to attack, knowing that they would meet no
resistance.
This
will have had a profoundly depressing effect on the mass movement.
The same leaders who have been encouraging them to resist now tells
them to surrender. Reports from Bangkok say that the rank and file
women and men in the protest site are very angry about this. That is
not surprising. The history of class struggle shows that it is better
to go down to defeat fighting than to surrender without a fight.
The
fight for democracy
The
achievement of true democracy is not possible without the overthrow
of the oligarchy. But the overthrow of the oligarchy is not possible
without the overthrow of the Thai monarchy. King Bhumibol Adulyadej
is 82 and in poor health. But he is a rallying-point for all the
forces of reaction.
The
International Marxist Tendency expresses its firm support for the
revolutionary movement of the Thai masses. We stand for the immediate
resignation of the Abhisit government and the holding of free and
democratic elections. We defend all democratic rights, and above all
the right of the people to organise, to protest and to strike. In
order to guarantee these rights we demand the calling of a
constituent assembly to elaborate a genuinely democratic
constitution, the first point of which must be the abolition of the
monarchy.
It
is said that the Thai monarchy is a venerable institution, sanctified
by religion and the power of an age-old tradition. But that could
also have been said of the Romanov dynasty in tsarist Russia. But it
only took one bloody clash on the ninth of January 1905 for all the
old monarchist prejudices to be swept from the minds of the Russian
people. Whatever the immediate result of the present bloody clashes
on the streets of Bangkok, they will have the same effect.
The
burning hatred of the government of the rich will inevitably be
transferred to that bulwark of privilege, the monarchy. The demand
for a Republic will grow, uniting broad layers of the masses. And
with each step forward the masses take, it will become clear that the
only way forward is through a government of workers and poor farmers.
As
in all countries, so in Thailand, the institution of monarchy is not
merely a meaningless survival of the past, a colourful but
essentially meaningless anachronism, something for the tourists to
admire. It is a bulwark of reaction, a symbol of property, power,
wealth and privilege, a rallying point for all the forces of the
counter-revolution. It must be swept aside if the revolution is to
advance.
As
we write these words, the fate of the mass protest movement in
Bangkok is being settled. Given the capitulation of the leadership,
it seems likely that the first round will end in a defeat. But this
explosion of the class struggle will have profound consequences.
Thailand will never be the same again. Whatever government emerges
from a chaotic situation will be inherently unstable. No lasting
settlement is possible on the present basis. New upheavals are
inevitable.
The
revolutionary democratic movement has been filled with class content.
It will inevitably go beyond the bounds initially set by the
leadership. It is in the interest of the Thai working class to fight
for the most advanced democratic demands. Only by clearing away all
the old feudal rubbish can the workers achieve the necessary
conditions for developing the class struggle. But the workers will
fight for democracy with their own class weapons: it is necessary to
call a general strike to bring down the government!
A general strike, organised
through action committees, is the only way to disorganise the
counter-revolutionary forces and to give organisational form and
cohesion to the revolutionary movement of the masses. The conquest of
democracy would require the
complete revolutionary reconstruction of Thai society from top to
bottom. And
this aim can only be achieved when the working class places itself at
the head of society to overthrow the hated oligarchy, following the
example of the Russian
workers and peasants in 1917.