Do they have a realistic shot of taking power? India is a huge country with many different regions and it has a big army and police force and it would have the support of the capitalist powers.
What is more likely is that people would be killed, maybe lots, needlessly and with no positive result, while the economic development that will probably eventually lift hundreds of millions out of poverty would be retarded by conflict.
If the struggle gets big enough, there would be civil war, which would do nobody any good. There’s nothing worse than utopians with guns. When will people learn to just stop fucking killing each other?
And what do they think they will achieve if they get power? They’ll nationalize Indian companies and suddenly there wont be hundreds of millions of poor people with no toilets? They’ll put an end to corruption? A Communist government will put an end to corruption? Hahahahahaha. In India? Hahahahaha.
India would still be fucked up, dirt poor and corrupt, except it would also be an outright dictatorship, probably a highly repressive one like practically every Communist government in history, and Communism itself would probably actually retard economic development. And good luck outlawing caste.
Communism and the fight for Communism would just bring more miseries to India. That’s what I think of armed struggle in India. Some people just refuse to learn from history.
The system is already killing at least 4 million and probably a lot more anyway.
The Maoists nearly took power in Nepal, and now they are 40% of Parliament.
Communist countries have done great things as far as feeding and housing people, giving them basic education and health care and putting in essential sanitation. India has failed at all of these things, mostly because they haven’t even tried. Communist societies have not been very corrupt. As they became more capitalist, they became much more corrupt.
There won’t be any “economic development that will eventually lift millions of out poverty.” It’s not going to happen under neoliberalism.
Don’t you ever get tired of neoliberals telling us to wait around for the “economic development that will eventually lift millions of out poverty?” Don’t you realize that under neoliberal capitalism reduction of poverty is a goal that has zero value, and I do mean zero value.
Capitalists don’t care. They don’t care about reducing poverty. They don’t care if people are poor or not. In general, capitalists try to increase poverty by reducing anti-poverty programs every chance they get under “reforms.” Even Clinton got rid of welfare, an anti-poverty program.
Capitalists always push austerity, which causes mass increases in poverty as we are seeing in Europe. Poverty reduction is simply not a priority for capitalists, and in fact, capitalists generally oppose explicit programs to reduce poverty. The only people who push poverty reduction programs are socialists and social liberals.
The system is already killing at least 4 million people every year and probably a lot more. To get rid of such a killing system, if you need a war to do it, is a humanitarian act.