I mean the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in West Bengal and its Nandigram Massacre, about which I posted two IPS stories: <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070312/005264.html>.
Before that, Dennis Redmond and Sujeet Bhatt had posted about that: <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070312/005082.html> <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070312/005083.html>.
Even before things deteriorated to this point, I had been hearing about this land conflict from MR's sister publication Analytical Monthly Review among other sources: "Land Grab and 'Development' Fraud in India," 21.09.06, <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/amr210906.html>.
I have read similar stories about China, too, of course.
In the case of Mugabe, at least his days are probably numbered. I just don't expect much from his opposition.
> I was rather under the impression that there were no Marxist regimes or mass
> movements around.
No one person gets to define what and who is Marxist and make the definition stick for the whole world. Language doesn't work like that. In many people's minds, whether they support or oppose or are neutral toward such governments, they still are or have something to do with "Marxism" and "Communism." You can't blame them for thinking so since the parties that govern them call themselves Communist Parties.
> All the same, I see that the peasants of the South are pretty good at
> killing one another, without the intervention of Marxists. Who were the
> Marxists killing peasants in their millions in Rwanda? Who are the Marxists
> engaged in raids on farmers in Darfur? Who were the Marxists in the civil
> wars in Somalia, or in the Iran-Iraq war? And who are the Marxists in the
> war between Shia and Sunni in Iraq? Was the Suharto regime Marxist when it
> attacked peasants in Aceh and East Timor?
>
> There is one strand of Marxism that has proved pretty lethal, most
> especially to peasants, and that, curiously enough is the Marxism that
> oriented itself to the peasantry, Maoism. You do not have to accept Chang
> and Halliday's numbers to know that Mao himself was a dab hand at wiping out
> the peasants, and his protege Pol Pot seems to have been going for the
> record. I seem to recall that Mugabe was on the pro-Chinese wing of the
> Zimbabwean national liberation movements.
"It's better than Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq!" or "It's better than Pol Pot!" doesn't seem like a great selling pitch for Marxism. -- Yoshie