Burmese Way to Socialism: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:41, 21 August 2026

Burma shows up in Infrared debate via the anti-colonial independence question — Aung San, the Japanese interregnum, British rule.

From the INFRARED RUMBLE: MASSIVE SERVER-WIDE DEBATE:

> "What were the whites in Burma doing? Siding with the moderates — European elite opportunists... Then when they realized Britain would finally have to be forced to give them independence — because the Japanese finally gave the Burmese a taste of freedom, political freedom, unlike the British who were intent on keeping political AND economic control..."

> "Burma's independence was very quickly disposed of, and that's why it was a failure. But the person the Burmese look up to is still Aung San... You're looking up to a corpse, looking up to a failure. You want to be successful, look up to someone who's a winner."

An opponent answered by symmetry: "I could say the same thing for Stalin — he failed by allowing Khrushchev to take power..." — exposing the real question: are revolutions judged by their defeats or their achievements, and who defines "failure"? (Yezhovshchina, Socialism With a Human Face).

References

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-"'''"Burma''' appears in Infrared debate via the anti-colonial independence question — Aung San, the Japanese interregnum, and British rule.
+'''Burma''' shows up in Infrared debate via the anti-colonial independence question — Aung San, the Japanese interregnum, British rule.
-== From the streams ==
 From the [https://infrared-transcripts.pages.dev/en/youtube/infrared/hglyp6dadfg/ INFRARED RUMBLE: MASSIVE SERVER-WIDE DEBATE]:
-> "What were the whites in Burma doing? All they did was side with the moderates — European elite opportunists, although they were pragmatically supporting the Japanese at first. Then when they realized Britain would finally have to be forced to give them independence — because the Japanese finally gave the Burmese a taste of freedom, although not pure freedom, but political freedom, unlike the British who were intent on keeping political AND economic control..."
+> "What were the whites in Burma doing? Siding with the moderates — European elite opportunists... Then when they realized Britain would finally have to be forced to give them independence — because the Japanese finally gave the Burmese a taste of freedom, political freedom, unlike the British who were intent on keeping political AND economic control..."
-> "Burma's independence was very quickly disposed of, and that's why it was a failure. But the person the Burmese look up to is still Aung San... You're basically looking up to a corpse, looking up to a failure. You want to be successful, look up to someone who's a winner."
+> "Burma's independence was very quickly disposed of, and that's why it was a failure. But the person the Burmese look up to is still Aung San... You're looking up to a corpse, looking up to a failure. You want to be successful, look up to someone who's a winner."
-== The exchange ==
+An opponent answered by symmetry: "I could say the same thing for Stalin — he failed by allowing Khrushchev to take power..." — exposing the real question: are revolutions judged by their defeats or their achievements, and who defines "failure"? ([[Yezhovshchina]], [[Socialism With a Human Face]]).
-An opponent answered by symmetry: "I could say the same thing for Stalin — he failed by allowing Khrushchev to take power after him... does this just apply—" — exposing the debate's real question: whether revolutionary projects are judged by their defeats or their achievements, and who gets to define "failure" ([[Yezhovshchina]], [[Socialism With a Human Face]]).
 == See also ==

ComradeBanana (talk | contribs)

Revision as of 10:41, 21 August 2026

See also

References