@class_struggler@marxbjrn@centristlandian Genuinely curious about this. Do you know of specific incidents of police collaboration like that? Like any specific region or timeline, or any incident?
This is also a big omission from Scott H.'s article on fascism that is quite popular. The Indian party's internal circulars on fascism are much more complete, although more work remains to be done. Especially on the Brahmanical aspect of Indian fascism.
Bourgeois democracies are perfectly capable of unleashing extreme police repression on the people, without being 'fascist'. Fascism on the other hand involves mass participation in reactionary violence, as part of an overall reactionary mass movement.
It is this mass movement we must be careful of. The hardest part about toppling fascist regimes isn't necessarily the increased amounts of police repression, it is the mass character of repression itself when even a section of the workers become the stormtroopers of the reaction.
To put it more concretely: yes, the strategic areas are obviously primary. But the Green Revolution areas and the cities are becoming as important as Bastar as the day goes by.
Active boycott of elections in areas of armed movement, and propaganda for the boycott where an active boycott cannot be carried out, i.e. in areas currently beyond the reach of the armed movement, such has been the established policy. But is it working?
As bureaucratic capitalism develops even further and further, and as it penetrates the daily life of the people more and more, political interventions in the 'advanced' areas become all the more necessary, and so is the work in cities and towns.
@drakeberkman In their internal, organisational documents which are not made available to the outside world, it can be clearly seen the needs of the people's war and improvement of the military situation are the key considerations behind every organisational decision.
The concept of militarization of the party was championed by Charu Majumder too, albeit in an embryonic form. It can also be argued that he believed in the Strategic Offensive of the world even if he didn't call it as such.
@drakeberkman Their criticism of Majumdar is about some of his tactics, the boycott of mass organisations being one. In essence however they are in complete agreement with Majumdar's emphasis on the centrality of military work.
Will recognition of all their demands end Indian semifeudalism? Absolutely not. But it will weaken it, it will strengthen the democratic consciousness of the peasants and prepare them for the final assault on semifeudalism.
It's true that the leadership of the peasant protests in Delhi lies in the hands of rich peasants. But that shouldn't stop the revolutionary camp from supporting the movement's demands whole-heartedly. Not doing so is an ultra-leftist error.
Indian semi-feudalism is kept in place to a large extent because of the uncertainty the peasant operates in. Highly uncertain prices compel the peasant to enter exploitative arrangements with moneylenders of various sorts. Stable prices for crops is a democratic demand.