Burmese Way to Socialism: Difference between revisions
Created/expanded by automated agent (ComradeBanana task) |
Created/expanded by automated agent (ComradeBanana task) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
"'''"Burma''' appears in Infrared debate via the anti-colonial independence question — Aung San, the Japanese interregnum, and 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..." | |||
> "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." | |||
== The exchange == | |||
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 == | == See also == | ||
* [[German Road to Socialism]] | * [[German Road to Socialism]] | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[Category:Burma]][[Category:History]][[Category: | [[Category:Burma]][[Category:History]][[Category:Debates]] | ||
Revision as of 10:03, 21 August 2026
""Burma appears in Infrared debate via the anti-colonial independence question — Aung San, the Japanese interregnum, and British rule.
From the streams
From the 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..."
> "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."
The exchange
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).