The First Red Shirt District Officially Opened And Recognized Today

[cdnvic]

We're getting very tired of people attacking others instead of intelligently discussing a news story. If this keeps up there will be account suspensions.

[animatic]

i have been looking on line for a map that shows the areas that voted red in the last election and a map of the current flooded areas

i was interested to see if there was any correlation between the two areas

i know Thais have a saying that loosely means''if you give bad you get bad''

its something akin to the'' what goes around comes around ''

i know in England, we say ''the sun only shines on the righteous''

i wondered if that applied here............

And just how will Bangkok fit in your ideas? Not exactly a Red Village is it?

Bring your swim trunks on the next visit to Dindaeng..

[timekeeper]

i have been looking on line for a map that shows the areas that voted red in the last election and a map of the current flooded areas

i was interested to see if there was any correlation between the two areas

i know Thais have a saying that loosely means''if you give bad you get bad''

its something akin to the'' what goes around comes around ''

i know in England, we say ''the sun only shines on the righteous''

i wondered if that applied here............

And just how will Bangkok fit in your ideas? Not exactly a Red Village is it?

Bangkok is not flooded in all areas and you think no one in Bangkok voted Red? '

maybe its only the red areas in Bangkok that are flooded?

maybe the non red rich folks can afford to live in areas where floods are unlikely to happen?

who knows?

it was just a theory........

Edited October 13, 2011 by timekeeper

[yoshiwara]

The fantasy of the Che T-shirt wearing red cheerleaders is that the so-called red villages will provide the basis of a liberation struggle to overthrow the Thai ruling classes in full Eisenstein movie mode. In short Thailand is their revolutionary playground substituting for their absence from any previous organised socialist activity in their home countries. Given also that the red villages have no base in the Thai working class, have no working class demands that might upset the PTP government and appear to do no more than prance about wearing fake Thaksin masks while waiting for advice from Thaksin's thug leadership such as Jatuporn who are concerned with actions only that further the return of Thaksin to continue his looting of the Thai state, one might exercise a little toleration for our ersatz forum revolutionaries, or should we rather say fake?

[nurofiend]

When the negative aspects of an organisation includes burning down buildings, I really don't think it's biased to ignore their positive ones.

Forgive me my bad English, please, but i get the impression that you have performed an almost perfect oxymoron right now.

Nope.

It's not dissimilar to saying that while Charles Manson might have been kind to his grandmother, the negative aspects of his life clearing outshone that positive trait and those are what people will remember and focus on... except for those that wish to defend or are apologetic of his overall behavior.

what you're saying is not the same...

you're saying people will remember and focus on the negative things more than the positive..... he's saying it's fine to ignore anything positive ever done because of the negative, there's a difference...a big difference

translation of what you stated = if someone does something really bad, unless you forget and pay no focus to anything good they've ever done... then you're "defend"ing and "apologetic" for the really bad thing that they've done... utter crap

Edited October 14, 2011 by nurofiend

[bkkjames]

Do they hand out little red books to visitors so they can get up to speed with village life? Lol

[nurofiend]

Anyone that thinks declaring an *existing* village or district as a strict adherent to any political view is a good idea has a very loose grasp of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom from oppression.

i agree with this sentiment, though where you're getting your stone cold facts from...i have no idea

some more clarity than a little 3 paragraph article would be a nice addition from the nation...

[nicknostitz]

The fantasy of the Che T-shirt wearing red cheerleaders is that the so-called red villages will provide the basis of a liberation struggle to overthrow the Thai ruling classes in full Eisenstein movie mode. In short Thailand is their revolutionary playground substituting for their absence from any previous organised socialist activity in their home countries. Given also that the red villages have no base in the Thai working class, have no working class demands that might upset the PTP government and appear to do no more than prance about wearing fake Thaksin masks while waiting for advice from Thaksin's thug leadership such as Jatuporn who are concerned with actions only that further the return of Thaksin to continue his looting of the Thai state, one might exercise a little toleration for our ersatz forum revolutionaries, or should we rather say fake?

1) Socialism was invented in Europe. There is hardly an European country that not only had "organized socialist activity", but has established and perfectly legal socialist parties that regularly are elected into governments as well.

2) While the Red Shirts (and the Yellow Shirts) have minority socialist factions, the majority Red Shirts are hardly what can be defined as socialist - the broad appeal of the Red Shirts is that their ideology is not socialist, but at most social liberal, and clearly pro-capitalist. If you look at which foreign political entities are most supportive of the Red Shirts and/or Thaksin you may find out that especially conservative parties in several European countries have shown support leading to changed foreign policies in Europe towards Thailand, such as the German CDU/CSU and their political foundations (read up on the issues of Thaksin's visa for Germany, who supported Thaksin, and who was poised against Thaksin, for example).

3) The the large working class areas such as Don Mueang, Pathum Thani or Samut Prakan especially have very strong Red Shirt organizations, also reflected in the elections in which you saw in those areas clear election victories of Puah Thai Party. You may be misled into thinking that because initially several labor unions supported the PAD (they have withdrawn their support now though) that because of that "the working class" was against Thaksin/Puea Thai/Red Shirts. Reality though is that only a miniscule portion of Thailand's labor force is organized in unions, and not reflective of what in many other countries is "the working class" - this is a strange particularity of Thailand.

[animatic]

All movements go too far.

Bertrand Russell

Edited October 14, 2011 by animatic

[volk666]

Red shirts are being educated in democracy schools run by former maoists, aren't they? Then even Nick admits that dissenting political opinions should not be expressed in red villages and intimidation of dissenters is par for the course. And that relates to western democracy how? I've even spotted a word "liberal" in Nick's writings. Liberal?

And what about "those tendencies need to be watched"? Watched in what sense? As in "pass the popcorn"?

And what about the publicly stated goal of bringing Thaksin back? It's not like he is in jail and suffering the hardships, Nelson Mandela he is not.

It looks, walks, and quacks like a nascent fascist movement trying to reunite with their Dear Leader and forge the pure democratic Red Land land free of ammarts and their supporters. I might be exaggerating but it's not western democracy in any meaningful sense and if it has to be watched, it needs to be watched with apprehension.

[hammered]

One thing that often gets left out of these discussions is what created the conditions for the rampant success of the red shirts and also for the rampant success of Thaksin. Failure to put things into those contexts leads nowhere. What created the conditions also explains why there is so little trust for older power players and parties

[volk666]

conditions for the rampant success of the red shirts and also for the rampant success of Thaksin

That you will find everywhere. The opportunity for abuse is never closed to real opportunists, you can never build a completely foolproof system.

If unfair wealth distribution and lack of opportunities are the criteria then reds jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, they just don't know it yet, it's not part of the general red discourse, though some groups might have already noticed that the current government is no better than the previous, same ammarts, different names. Even for those reds the strong emotional attachment to the red brand prevents them from thinking clearly and speaking out.

Nick is a perfect example here, I think. He won't give up on reds no matter what they did, no matter how irrational his arguments might sound. By his logic Hitler might have been fond of pets and planted flowers, should we forget the Holocaust now? Speaking of pets and flowers - Thailand had good old uncle Samak in that category, nicest of men, so gentle, so kind and so Buddhist. Should we forget his role in encouraging 1976 massacre? Of course not, but why should we forget reds "misdeeds" as Nick implores us to do? Because he spent years of his life in their midst?

[hammered]

conditions for the rampant success of the red shirts and also for the rampant success of Thaksin

That you will find everywhere. The opportunity for abuse is never closed to real opportunists, you can never build a completely foolproof system.

If unfair wealth distribution and lack of opportunities are the criteria then reds jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, they just don't know it yet, it's not part of the general red discourse, though some groups might have already noticed that the current government is no better than the previous, same ammarts, different names. Even for those reds the strong emotional attachment to the red brand prevents them from thinking clearly and speaking out.

Nick is a perfect example here, I think. He won't give up on reds no matter what they did, no matter how irrational his arguments might sound. By his logic Hitler might have been fond of pets and planted flowers, should we forget the Holocaust now? Speaking of pets and flowers - Thailand had good old uncle Samak in that category, nicest of men, so gentle, so kind and so Buddhist. Should we forget his role in encouraging 1976 massacre? Of course not, but why should we forget reds "misdeeds" as Nick implores us to do? Because he spent years of his life in their midst?

I cant speak for Nick obviouslt but would think he recognizes that the reds are a major player in where Thailand will go and cannot be ignored, sidelined or given simple labels to demonize them. They are also a growing movement. In fact the only growing movement in Thailand.

I personally dont think the reds and Hitler/Nazis can be compared although certainly some of the more extreme enemies of the reds try to do this. Then again those groupings themsleves actually demonstrate more of the commonly accepted signs of facism than the reds do and that needs to be borne in mind when labelling what is a group that has stated it will accept electoral defeat as facist while not seeing an even worse threat in groups that have shown they will not accept electoral outcome

Personally though I would rather see the emotive labels left out and debate kept to substantive issues especially as many of the Thai friends and family I have are red supporters and a few even yellow and even living in Chonburi I have to mix with increasing numbers of red supporters on a daily basis and I cant say I see anything other than normal people who want a bit better deal and the removal of military interference in governments they elect and to be honest while they dont always agree with the red arson, most including some yellows see it as part of poltical struggle rather than bads versus good. But that is just part of a paradigm shift from notions of unity to notions of differences that need to settled and right now there is no agreed structure to do this and wont be unless those favouring coups step back

By the way, a read of Gramsci is worthwhile for enlightenment on how what seem irreconcilible groupings end up allied at times of change and natural partners end up divided.

[whybother]

<snip>

to be honest while they dont always agree with the red arson

<snip>

Do you mean, that they usually do agree with the red arson?

[tlansford]

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the Red Shirt Village Movement here (and quite some hatred as well).

The whole thing is more symbolic than anything else, presently. It just means that most people in any particular village are Red Shirts, and show support for the Red Shirt movement by declaring themselves a Red Shirt village. Of course this also involves organizational structures, in which the Red Shirt movement builds lateral communication networks country wide that do not anymore solely depend on the hierarchical structures to and from their top leadership, which the organizers of this movement see as especially necessary in case of another military coup. This idea is supported by most Red Shirt leaders, but not by all of them. Within this sub-movement of the Red Shirts, such an organization does also improve political education efforts.

Another reason to start this movement, as was explained to me by the organizers, is that in case of a coup or a similar non-electoral overthrow of the elected government, Red Shirts can resist this in their home districts, and not go to Bangkok to get killed there, like in 2010.

One has to see this also in context of the efforts of the military, and in particular of the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), who after last year's crackdown have received huge budgets to go into villages of Red Shirt strongholds, and to pressure them to stop supporting the Red Shirt movement (without any success). This movement was founded as a counter movement to the ISOC efforts on local level.

Of course it has to be noted what critics state - in such a movement is of course the inherent danger of suppressing differing views within these villages. This has to be watched, of course. Unfortunately though in today's Thailand and its color coded conflicts all sides here have been, and are guilty of intolerance. Opponents of the Red Shirts in many villages in the Red Shirt heartlands have to be careful with expressing their views too openly, but so have Red Shirts in the southern provinces, where also Red Shirt meetings have been violently attacked by the majority population there in the South, which opposes the Red Shirts.

The problem here is, that even though things are calm at the moment, the conflict is far from over, and all sides expect sooner or later a new round, however that will look like. All sides prepare presently for a new round of open conflict, the Red Shirts do, and so do their opponents. Posters here who state that the Red side has won the elections, and question why the Red Shirts still campaign, should consider that while in most developed countries elections are the ultimate political decision making processes, the Thai system though has a sort of a double-polity, meaning that one system of governance is indeed the elections, but besides this is another system of governance existing, which is at loggerheads with the elected government. The elected government is only in power of the aforementioned system, not at all though of the latter system, which the Red Shirts define as "Amart" - or the traditional elites, or "Amartayathipathai" - the rule of the traditional elites.

How this whole thing continues to develop in the future depends solely on the development of the conflict, if there will be peaceful conflict resolution (which i hope for, but it seems unlikely to me), or if the conflict blows up again - which will then possibly worse and more widespread than in 2010.

Keep waving your red flag, Nick.

It seems like an informed perspective on the current situation rather than a flag.

[volk666]

...a paradigm shift from notions of unity to notions of differences that need to settled and right now

That shift has obviously missed the Federation of Red Villages, which is a move in exactly opposite direction. It takes incredible, self-inflicted blindness not to see that and point fingers elsewhere, like your Chonburi. There's no lack diversity there, afaik.

Overall I think reds are important only at the election time, in between elections they have no agenda, no vision, no platform, no strategies, no leaders. Just a talkshop for villagers to vent their anger without shaking things too much, which, I admit, is an important function to keep the plebs content, kudos to PTP for managing them so nicely.

[tlansford]

Anyone that thinks declaring an *existing* village or district as a strict adherent to any political view is a good idea has a very loose grasp of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom from oppression.

What strikes me in your comment about the red shirt villages is the parallel I see with so many counties in West Texas.

There, in accordance with the prevailing religious views that alcohol is evil, the local governments of many counties outlaw the sale of alcohol.

That is not a political view, that is a religious view - in a country with strict separation of church and state.

That is not a simple declaration of a political position, that is the law as applied by the official organs of gov't.

( And Some people call it oppressive. )

It is in the heart of one of the most well-known "democracies" in the world.

By contrast, one could argue that the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages - looking specifically at what we have been able to learn & share about this process here and elsewhere - one could argue, that these people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Perhaps then they actually are demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the concept of democracy?

Anyway, I would not agree with your assertion about not having a grasp of these ideals.

As this Red Shirt Village movement is apparently a grassroots phenomena, it indicates to me that these Thai citizens are exercising their rights and learning more and more about what it means to take responsibility in a democracy. If you take a viewpoint that the Thai people still need to learn about democracy (as some here seem to express), then you could call it on-the-job training.

Recognizing this in no way means you need to agree with the movement or its objectives. Again, in the USA, you will find active, powerful grassroots organizations concerned with many different issues and reflecting many different political, social, and religious views.

Coming back to the thread, I found some of the incites and perspectives regarding the raison d'être behind the red shirt villages very interesting.

[Buchholz]

When the negative aspects of an organisation includes burning down buildings, I really don't think it's biased to ignore their positive ones.

Forgive me my bad English, please, but i get the impression that you have performed an almost perfect oxymoron right now.

Nope.

It's not dissimilar to saying that while Charles Manson might have been kind to his grandmother, the negative aspects of his life clearing outshone that positive trait and those are what people will remember and focus on... except for those that wish to defend or are apologetic of his overall behavior.

what you're saying is not the same...

you're saying people will remember and focus on the negative things more than the positive..... he's saying it's fine to ignore anything positive ever done because of the negative, there's a difference...a big difference

<personal attack comments snipped in deference to moderator's previous warning>

Not really, in that most people will ignore Manson's treatment of his grandmother entirely because of what's he done negatively. Not dissimilar to the Reds.

[globalmenace]

Can anyone explain in one sentence what the objective is to declare a "Red Village"?

[koosdeboer]

Can anybody tell me who decides to declare a red village? Have all the people in the village a say or is it the village head who decides for them?

[Emptyset]

Can anybody tell me who decides to declare a red village? Have all the people in the village a say or is it the village head who decides for them?

I don't think the Village Head is allowed to be a red shirt leader. Least not according to this article: http://english.periodismohumano.com/2011/08/05/thailand%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cred-towns%e2%80%9d/

[rixalex]

By contrast, one could argue that the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages - looking specifically at what we have been able to learn & share about this process here and elsewhere - one could argue, that these people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Perhaps then they actually are demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the concept of democracy?

It's not the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages, it is certain members of those communities - most notably the poo yais - and that is what is so wrong.

OK, if people, such as the poo yais, want to put up signs on the front of their own properties declaring some sort of political allegiance then fine - that is their decision and that is their right. As you say, freedom of speech. Putting up signs declaring entire villages as being of one united political persuasion is an attempt to stamp out freedom of speech and to force everyone in that village to stand under the same banner. It has nothing to do with democracy or freedom of speech. Arguing such is an absolute nonsense.

[globalmenace]

Anyone that thinks declaring an *existing* village or district as a strict adherent to any political view is a good idea has a very loose grasp of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom from oppression.

What strikes me in your comment about the red shirt villages is the parallel I see with so many counties in West Texas.

There, in accordance with the prevailing religious views that alcohol is evil, the local governments of many counties outlaw the sale of alcohol.

That is not a political view, that is a religious view - in a country with strict separation of church and state.

That is not a simple declaration of a political position, that is the law as applied by the official organs of gov't.

( And Some people call it oppressive. )

It is in the heart of one of the most well-known "democracies" in the world.

By contrast, one could argue that the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages - looking specifically at what we have been able to learn & share about this process here and elsewhere - one could argue, that these people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Perhaps then they actually are demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the concept of democracy?

Anyway, I would not agree with your assertion about not having a grasp of these ideals.

As this Red Shirt Village movement is apparently a grassroots phenomena, it indicates to me that these Thai citizens are exercising their rights and learning more and more about what it means to take responsibility in a democracy. If you take a viewpoint that the Thai people still need to learn about democracy (as some here seem to express), then you could call it on-the-job training.

Recognizing this in no way means you need to agree with the movement or its objectives. Again, in the USA, you will find active, powerful grassroots organizations concerned with many different issues and reflecting many different political, social, and religious views.

Coming back to the thread, I found some of the incites and perspectives regarding the raison d'être behind the red shirt villages very interesting.

Wow, that's what I call a bunch of random synapse firings masquarading as rational thought. Good on ya there.

In case you aren't aware, alcohol is controlled to some extent nearly everywhere.

[rixalex]

Can anyone explain in one sentence what the objective is to declare a "Red Village"?

Snuff out free thought.

[rixalex]

Wow, that's what I call a bunch of random synapse firings masquarading as rational thought. Good on ya there.

Sometimes one almost feels sorry for the red sympathisers who at times, really have their work cut out trying to give rational and reasonable explanations to the most ridiculous things.

Case in point here, where we have witnessed the declaration of entire villages as being of one political colour, described as a move forward for democracy and free speech. Amazing.

[TAWP]

By contrast, one could argue that the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages - looking specifically at what we have been able to learn & share about this process here and elsewhere - one could argue, that these people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Perhaps then they actually are demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the concept of democracy?

Ignoring the false statement that Red Shirts is anything but a astroturfed movement, I would like to point out one important oversight in your praise for the Red's new-found love for democracy.

We are not arguing against any-one buying up land and setting up a collective, a new housing, declaring it to be a 'Red Village' and inviting anyone that feels the same to move there.

However, to declare a Red Shirt village for an existing village, where anything from [presumably] 49% to 1% of the inhabitants are NOT Red Shirt allies, is a direct violation on their basic human rights.

I do hope you take note of the difference and understand what the argument is about.

[Buchholz]

Can anyone explain in one sentence what the objective is to declare a "Red Village"?

I thought it was pretty decent one sentence description:

a sign at the entrance of the village with Thaksin Shinawatra’s portrait and the words “Red shirts for democracy town”

[tlansford]

By contrast, one could argue that the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages - looking specifically at what we have been able to learn & share about this process here and elsewhere - one could argue, that these people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Perhaps then they actually are demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the concept of democracy?

It's not the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages, it is certain members of those communities - most notably the poo yais - and that is what is so wrong.

OK, if people, such as the poo yais, want to put up signs on the front of their own properties declaring some sort of political allegiance then fine - that is their decision and that is their right. As you say, freedom of speech. Putting up signs declaring entire villages as being of one united political persuasion is an attempt to stamp out freedom of speech and to force everyone in that village to stand under the same banner. It has nothing to do with democracy or freedom of speech. Arguing such is an absolute nonsense.

Well, yes, that is what is so wrong, in your opinion. It seems to me that you are forcing the issue through a western prism. In the US during elections, for example, people throughout a city will post signs for their preferred candidates, and no, they don't declare the entire town red or blue (the US version of colors...). On the other hand, this does not eliminate the pressure to conform in the USA.

Secondly, you don't provide any support for your opinion that this is "an attempt to stamp out freedom of speech". As has been noted already in this thread, in spite of a large number of red shirt villages, there is not a widespread reporting of this phenomena to justify your opinion. Certainly if there were, then that would be a problem.

If a village is to declare itself a red, yellow or blue village - this can easily be viewed as the people exercising their rights. In this thread and other stories, it has been mentioned that this is at least partly in reaction to the ISOC going into these villages to do educate/intimidate. It seems reasonable to me to look at the context in which this is taking place.

This is not a defense of red villages. We could be talking about yellow villages.

In brief, if this is a Thai way for the people in the countryside to exercise their rights to express themselves and be active in the political sphere, then I generally think that is a good thing.

And really, in terms of stamping out freedoms, we can look elsewhere to find that. I don't recall where you are from, but there are worse examples of official, legal means to stamp out freedoms and democracy in America. You may be familiar with the prevalent methods of redistricting in the USA, for example, which are used to guarantee the party affiliation of the representative to be sent to congress.

[tlansford]

Can anyone explain in one sentence what the objective is to declare a "Red Village"?

Snuff out free thought.

Sounds more like the purpose of TVF

[rubl]

begin with American stuff removed ...

By contrast, one could argue that the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages - looking specifically at what we have been able to learn & share about this process here and elsewhere - one could argue, that these people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Perhaps then they actually are demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the concept of democracy?

Anyway, I would not agree with your assertion about not having a grasp of these ideals.

As this Red Shirt Village movement is apparently a grassroots phenomena, it indicates to me that these Thai citizens are exercising their rights and learning more and more about what it means to take responsibility in a democracy. If you take a viewpoint that the Thai people still need to learn about democracy (as some here seem to express), then you could call it on-the-job training.

Recognizing this in no way means you need to agree with the movement or its objectives. Again, in the USA, you will find active, powerful grassroots organizations concerned with many different issues and reflecting many different political, social, and religious views.

Coming back to the thread, I found some of the incites and perspectives regarding the raison d'être behind the red shirt villages very interesting.

Villages don't really declare themselves anything, it's the people in a village. That means probably a majority of people in a village elect to declare themselves a 'red-shirt village'. The declaration 'out-of-the-blue' raises questions:

- even if at this moment it's merely symbolic, what is the purpose?

- what does it mean to be declared a red-shirt village?

- how does it effect daily life?

- how does it effect those who opposed to the declaration?

If this 'red-shirt village' movement is a grass-root phenomena, and some Thai citizens exercise their rights and learn about responsibility, how come main agenda point is 'bring back Thaksin'?

What about self-reliance, self-entitlement, free of dictate by any type of elite? Democracy, brough to you by "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts"? "one man, one party, no compromise"? Please reming me, tomorrow belong to whom?