Thaksin And Pheu Thai Have 'Failed The Red Shirts'

[jayboy]

1) Who here is Jayboy characterizing as a "foreign military cheerleader"?

and

2) Does anyone believe that Giles U. would be considered "one of us" by the "establishment Thai world"? When Giles has been so vocally anti-establishment?

and

3) Why would Thailand owe Giles anything for the work of his father? (That statement is absolutely stunning!)

!.No explanation needed.The evidence is clear and out there.This isn't the first time you have asked this question..must be preying on your mind

2.You are obviously unfamiliar with the nuances of upper class Thailand.At St John's Oxford a few years ago Abhisit was perfectly happy to debate with Giles in a reasonable way.They have a lot in common - both upper middle class Anglophiles.Abhisit came off best by the way.

3.Thailand doesn't owe Giles for Dr Puey's enormous contribution except perhaps a mild indulgence, rather in the way Randolph Churchill was indulged by the British establishment.But I agree there are limits on this

1) Nothing is "preying on my mind" and imho your characterization of other unnamed posters as "foreign military cheerleaders" does need explanation, but that is simply my opinion.

2) Your anecdotal evidence of how 2 classmates got along being indicative of how Giles is perceived by "the Thai establishment" just doesn't make sense. 2 guys in the same school with similar backgrounds debated amicably certainly doesn't extend to either of them being "one of us" in the eyes of the Thai establishment.

3) Trying to make a case that Thailand owes anything to Giles certainly explains why Giles is PNG in Thailand, now doesn't it

They are not class mates.

Everything you say suggests to me you are remote from the Thai establishment, or even a rudimentary knowledge of the way it operates.

[jdinasia]

Well I will agree with you on one thing .. They are not in the same class. Abhisit is certainly linked into "the Thai establishment" and Giles U. obviously isn't. The fact that you skipped the content of the post and made assumptions about me (the poster) instead tells volumes

[TheLaughingMan]

FYI - the nation belongs to the yellow shirt group.

No, the nation belongs to ALL of the Thai people in equal measure.

Within the nation some people try to take greater advantage than others.

hahahaha if after 11k posts you STILL dont even know what "The Nation" means well...... you are seriously out of touch and you might as well not post, seriously. The Nation is a newspaper, duh.

[jdinasia]

FYI - the nation belongs to the yellow shirt group.

No, the nation belongs to ALL of the Thai people in equal measure.

Within the nation some people try to take greater advantage than others.

hahahaha if after 11k posts you STILL dont even know what "The Nation" means well...... you are seriously out of touch and you might as well not post, seriously. The Nation is a newspaper, duh.

TheLaughingMan -- please look at the posts you are quoting. They don't say "The Nation", they say the nation. One is a publication with a very real yellow-shirt slant. The other is not a publication and is in fact, a country. The error starts with the "FYI" post and not the response to it.

[rubl]

Aren't we lucky 'jayboy' and 'jdinasia' fight with words rather than the bigger toys like the Thai and Cambodian Armies ?

[TheLaughingMan]

FYI - the nation belongs to the yellow shirt group.

No, the nation belongs to ALL of the Thai people in equal measure.

Within the nation some people try to take greater advantage than others.

hahahaha if after 11k posts you STILL dont even know what "The Nation" means well...... you are seriously out of touch and you might as well not post, seriously. The Nation is a newspaper, duh.

TheLaughingMan -- please look at the posts you are quoting. They don't say "The Nation", they say the nation. One is a publication with a very real yellow-shirt slant. The other is not a publication and is in fact, a country. The error starts with the "FYI" post and not the response to it.

Bah fair enough, considering the name of the newspaper is used in almost every thread I'm just shocked that anyone wouldn't understand immediately even if it wasn't capitalised.

[jdinasia]

the FYI post had absolutely no referent, and that people make claims that the "yellows" own or think they own the country quite often, I can see where a misunderstanding could take place. (I posted that I thought the FYI poster meant "The Nation" earlier.

[jayboy]

Well I will agree with you on one thing .. They are not in the same class. Abhisit is certainly linked into "the Thai establishment" and Giles U. obviously isn't. The fact that you skipped the content of the post and made assumptions about me (the poster) instead tells volumes

Again you fail to appreciate nuance.I never said Giles was part of the Thai establishment: I said that he would be regarded by the Thai upper class as "one of us" - in the way that the late leftwinger Paul Foot (of Private Eye) while constantly goading the British establishment was for reasons of background seen as "one of us." An American might make the same case for Gore Vidal.

But I agree this is probably not a common topic of conversation among lower middle class Sino-Thai urbanites.

[rogerdee123]

Jayboy ... Jayboy .... Jayboy.

You've slipped up buddy.

Now we know what you read!

[jdinasia]

But I agree this is probably not a common topic of conversation among lower middle class Sino-Thai urbanites.

Where was that statement made for you to agree with? I love it when you keep baiting over and over .......

"The Thai establishment" considers him "one of us", but he's not part of "The Thai establishment" ----- should I go on? Analogy to England (I think?) and trying to put it on Thailand ... yeah ... LOL.

It is obvious to me that not only does the above logic fail (every time) but that people claiming on this thread to know what and how the "Thai establishment" thinks don't appear to have any more, and I bet far less, insight into that topic than I do. The only difference is, I don't pretend to possess that knowledge

[animatic]

FYI - the nation belongs to the yellow shirt group.

No, the nation belongs to ALL of the Thai people in equal measure.

Within the nation some people try to take greater advantage than others.

hahahaha if after 11k posts you STILL dont even know what "The Nation" means well...... you are seriously out of touch and you might as well not post, seriously. The Nation is a newspaper, duh.

Well then Kumsamut should have put in quotes and leading caps like you did, that changes the meaning totally.

I absolutely know what "The Nation" means.

And you KNOW I do.

But the line he wrote "FYI - the nation belongs to the yellow shirt group."

Implies that Thailand is run by the yellow shorts.

[animatic]

More precisely some here repeatedly and intentionally fail to appreciate nor acknowledge nuance in others, if it doesn't help their ideological arguments.

[yoshiwara]

Well I will agree with you on one thing .. They are not in the same class. Abhisit is certainly linked into "the Thai establishment" and Giles U. obviously isn't. The fact that you skipped the content of the post and made assumptions about me (the poster) instead tells volumes

Again you fail to appreciate nuance.I never said Giles was part of the Thai establishment: I said that he would be regarded by the Thai upper class as "one of us" - in the way that the late leftwinger Paul Foot (of Private Eye) while constantly goading the British establishment was for reasons of background seen as "one of us." An American might make the same case for Gore Vidal.

But I agree this is probably not a common topic of conversation among lower middle class Sino-Thai urbanites.

Both Gore Vidal and Paul Foot are/were intellectuals. For somebody 'one of us' who was rather more effective why not choose as a poster boy Kim Philby? Now he was a brilliant member of the British Establishment and died a general in the Soviet Army. Painting individuals as establishment gadflies may make them appear more loveable but it is not a game. On the one hand Giles Ungpakorn is an ineffective fool, but on the other he is still lined up on Thaksin's side. Or as we say a comrade on the surface, but objectively a thoroughgoing reactionary. Hey this is turning into a scene from the Life of Brian.

Edited April 29, 2011 by yoshiwara

[Emptyset]

Giles Ungpakorn is neither naive or an idealist. He is a Trotskyist and formerly a member of a group in Thailand which failed to build any lasting support in the Thai working class. Now just a big mouth. Unlike the Stalinist Thai CP which believes in a popular front but in practice completely subordinates itself to Thaksin's interests, Giles now criticises Thaksin. Big deal. This would be part of the mantra of 'unconditional but not uncritical' support for Thaksin and his reds. Not that any one really cares, but the so-called left doesn't know whether it is coming or going. Not to be confused with the forum Che T-shirt wearers who run a mile from socialist organisation but like the idea of foreign 'adventure' and 'revolt'. Petty-bourgeois dilettantes the lot of them.

I'd say Giles is naive and he is an idealist. He sees the best in the red shirts, the 'proles'... he believes hope lies in the proles (although in this case they're mostly peasants, I suppose, not proles). He believes even if they support Thaksin, they can be radicalized by people like him. Hence he accepted Jakrapob's invitation to speak on the red stage in 2009 (Jakrapob also seems to have become a revolutionary socialist of late too, judging by his writing... all a bit too romantic for me, especially whilst still backing Thaksin - although Marx would probably support this move). Giles is still a member of Turn Left Thailand, which I think is the group you're referring to. It hasn't won much support, but it has a small, committed membership. I believe Vipar Daomanee, a Thammasat academic, runs it. They recently put out some articles in English which were quite interesting.

Is the a Thai communist party still going? Didn't know that. Stalinist? Giles has never stopped criticizing Thaksin anyway, he's always been unequivocal in his opposition to the man from what I've read. I doubt the likes of Giles can be described as 'petty-bourgeois' either, for that matter. Bourgeois, perhaps, but didn't Marx speak of a special class of bourgeois that would side with the proletariat (I gather Marx was talking about himself)? So Giles must be one of them, hahaha.

[Emptyset]

How strange that you should resort to Trotskyite jargon - "petty - bourgeois dilettantes" !!

Surely he is both naive and an idealist, and I would add a pain in the neck too.He has no social skills or charisma.

You say he criticises Thaksin now, but he has always done so.I don't think he has any traction in Thailand at all.

I tend to agree he is a slightly absurd figure, not helped by a whining Kenneth Williams type voice.

Yeah, agitprop, that's what Giles is all about. I agree, it's shrill and irritating, although a lot of it is true, of course. But I'm always worried about people that are too certain about anything... I mean, have you read The Socialist Worker in the UK? Just rubbish, isn't it? It's just all so self-righteous and simplistic, and I would class myself as fairly left-wing (though wouldn't self-describe as socialist). But obviously in an open democracy, there should be space for that sort of thing.

I don't rate Giles much as an academic either, although some of his papers are useful. Does he have any traction? Well, if he does, it's only because of the way he's been treated by the authorities and the media. I think he's gained a small following because of this fact alone. Think of all the publicity... otherwise he may well have just been a fairly obscure academic. He's been hyped by some of the yellow-leaning media, Manager etc, as some sort of dangerous public enemy, that's bound to get people checking his work. His Red Siam manifesto is really tame by European standards. It's just calling for social democracy, basically. But he touched on certain issues which are very controversial, too radical for the majority of red shirts then, but things have come a long way in the past two years... if someone were to read it out on the stage then, they might've been lynched (well, making an assumption here, of course), but now... ? Hmm.

Somsak Jeamteerasakul has a much larger and a much more hardcore fan club than Giles, and he's actually more radical than Giles in a way. But he uses language very carefully and knows exactly where the line is. That's why any LM charge against him won't stand in anything other than a kangaroo court. Incidentally, Somsak Jeamteerasakul slammed Giles' academic work and basically called Giles an idiot who 'knows nothing' about either 'Thai society' or 'Marxism' (something like that anyway, was fairly scathing but that's how Somsak rolls), so it's nice to see that GIles is fully behind him despite that. Solidarity.

[jdinasia]

More precisely some here repeatedly and intentionally fail to appreciate nor acknowledge nuance in others, if it doesn't help their ideological arguments.

[rubl]

...

Incidentally, Somsak Jeamteerasakul slammed Giles' academic work and basically called Giles an idiot who 'knows nothing' about either 'Thai society' or 'Marxism' (something like that anyway, was fairly scathing but that's how Somsak rolls), so it's nice to see that GIles is fully behind him despite that. Solidarity.

Marxist tradition to show solidarity even while standing trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_show_trials

[yoshiwara]

How strange that you should resort to Trotskyite jargon - "petty - bourgeois dilettantes" !!

Surely he is both naive and an idealist, and I would add a pain in the neck too.He has no social skills or charisma.

You say he criticises Thaksin now, but he has always done so.I don't think he has any traction in Thailand at all.

I tend to agree he is a slightly absurd figure, not helped by a whining Kenneth Williams type voice.

Yeah, agitprop, that's what Giles is all about. I agree, it's shrill and irritating, although a lot of it is true, of course. But I'm always worried about people that are too certain about anything... I mean, have you read The Socialist Worker in the UK? Just rubbish, isn't it? It's just all so self-righteous and simplistic, and I would class myself as fairly left-wing (though wouldn't self-describe as socialist). But obviously in an open democracy, there should be space for that sort of thing.

I don't rate Giles much as an academic either, although some of his papers are useful. Does he have any traction? Well, if he does, it's only because of the way he's been treated by the authorities and the media. I think he's gained a small following because of this fact alone. Think of all the publicity... otherwise he may well have just been a fairly obscure academic. He's been hyped by some of the yellow-leaning media, Manager etc, as some sort of dangerous public enemy, that's bound to get people checking his work. His Red Siam manifesto is really tame by European standards. It's just calling for social democracy, basically. But he touched on certain issues which are very controversial, too radical for the majority of red shirts then, but things have come a long way in the past two years... if someone were to read it out on the stage then, they might've been lynched (well, making an assumption here, of course), but now... ? Hmm.

Somsak Jeamteerasakul has a much larger and a much more hardcore fan club than Giles, and he's actually more radical than Giles in a way. But he uses language very carefully and knows exactly where the line is. That's why any LM charge against him won't stand in anything other than a kangaroo court. Incidentally, Somsak Jeamteerasakul slammed Giles' academic work and basically called Giles an idiot who 'knows nothing' about either 'Thai society' or 'Marxism' (something like that anyway, was fairly scathing but that's how Somsak rolls), so it's nice to see that GIles is fully behind him despite that. Solidarity.

There are two ways to confront the Giles and Somsaks of this world. One is to have a go at the Marxist left. They are not too bothered about this most of the time. The other is to attack the contradictions in their position which identify them as anti-Marxist. That is their Achille's heel. The reality is that Giles and Somsak and the academic left have abandoned the working class a long time ago in favour of nebulous 'poor and 'peasantry' in search of short cuts and driven their supporters into the arms of Thaksin. They would not be too amused to be described as 'Third Worldists', certainly not if trying to wear the mantle of Lenin. For the red apologists on the forum, the argument goes mostly over their heads but they are certainly comfortable with being anti-organised working class. That is the nature of the petty-bourgeois.

Edited May 2, 2011 by yoshiwara