Jump to content

Red Shirts Reclaim 1932 Coup Anniversary To Advance Cause


Recommended Posts

Posted

Umm, omitting that the 1932 revolution ushered in not the era of democracy and freedom but fascism and dictatorship? Omitting that 1932 revolution was not much different than any other subsequent coup?

People who got quoted here are very aware of Pibul's legacy, they just choose not to talk about it while shamelessly preaching freedom of thought and freedom of access to knowledge, especially in Prawit's case. He's the one endlessly harping how people have been brainwashed by the establishment. In this article he is doing exactly the same thing he's accusing "ultra-royalists" of - presenting one sided view of the history.

And with your wiki knowledge you make it sound like the the '32 revolution immediately ushered in Pibuls dictatorship. He didn't become PM until 1935. Pridi was responsible for the first attempt at a constitution for a constitutional monarchy, certainly something to celebrate. The fact that Pibul acted like he did does not take away from the original triumph.

My god, you were there as well, incredible, I didn't think you were that old.

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Umm, omitting that the 1932 revolution ushered in not the era of democracy and freedom but fascism and dictatorship? Omitting that 1932 revolution was not much different than any other subsequent coup?

People who got quoted here are very aware of Pibul's legacy, they just choose not to talk about it while shamelessly preaching freedom of thought and freedom of access to knowledge, especially in Prawit's case. He's the one endlessly harping how people have been brainwashed by the establishment. In this article he is doing exactly the same thing he's accusing "ultra-royalists" of - presenting one sided view of the history.

And with your wiki knowledge you make it sound like the the '32 revolution immediately ushered in Pibuls dictatorship. He didn't become PM until 1935. Pridi was responsible for the first attempt at a constitution for a constitutional monarchy, certainly something to celebrate. The fact that Pibul acted like he did does not take away from the original triumph.

What KIND of constitution he was aiming for is of major impact, it wasn't gonna fly.

And the results of any attempted coup going astray are part of the knock on effects.

There was a relatively stable situation being agitated by the late arrival of the

industrial and communication ages, and even more agitation by the short lived

Marxist successes around the world.

We see now how short lived, but some ideologues see it as

only the old ways winning rounds, not as their concept being untenable.

Tell that to Russia and China and Cuba, all turned capitalist except in name.

Or in Russia's case; Totalitarian except in name. But Russia always was that way.

The French left intellectual influences on the 20-30's HiSo educated sions also had an effect.

So we had some disafected younger HiSos who had become ideologues out of country,

coming back to start a coup, that compromised too much when it could not do what was intended,

and shortly gave way to decades of unstable Pseudo-Democracy vacillating with Totalitarians.

Bravo, wonderful date to celebrate.

Edited by animatic
Posted

Umm, omitting that the 1932 revolution ushered in not the era of democracy and freedom but fascism and dictatorship? Omitting that 1932 revolution was not much different than any other subsequent coup?

People who got quoted here are very aware of Pibul's legacy, they just choose not to talk about it while shamelessly preaching freedom of thought and freedom of access to knowledge, especially in Prawit's case. He's the one endlessly harping how people have been brainwashed by the establishment. In this article he is doing exactly the same thing he's accusing "ultra-royalists" of - presenting one sided view of the history.

And with your wiki knowledge you make it sound like the the '32 revolution immediately ushered in Pibuls dictatorship. He didn't become PM until 1935. Pridi was responsible for the first attempt at a constitution for a constitutional monarchy, certainly something to celebrate. The fact that Pibul acted like he did does not take away from the original triumph.

I'm not arguing that 1932 revolution was a total failure in each and every respect, I'm against mindless idealizing of it.

There's also something very ominous about how the democratic ideas of 1932 led to decades of fascism and military dictatorship, listening to red propaganda I'm afraid history is going to repeat itself once again.

Also the fact that reds and PTP are full of Phibul like characters but I can't spot a single Pridi.

Here's a challenge - name one politician in that camp who inspired any kind of hope for the better. Everybody with any shred of integrity had left that movement long time ago, beginning with TRT founding members.

Posted

Umm, omitting that the 1932 revolution ushered in not the era of democracy and freedom but fascism and dictatorship? Omitting that 1932 revolution was not much different than any other subsequent coup?

People who got quoted here are very aware of Pibul's legacy, they just choose not to talk about it while shamelessly preaching freedom of thought and freedom of access to knowledge, especially in Prawit's case. He's the one endlessly harping how people have been brainwashed by the establishment. In this article he is doing exactly the same thing he's accusing "ultra-royalists" of - presenting one sided view of the history.

And with your wiki knowledge you make it sound like the the '32 revolution immediately ushered in Pibuls dictatorship. He didn't become PM until 1935. Pridi was responsible for the first attempt at a constitution for a constitutional monarchy, certainly something to celebrate. The fact that Pibul acted like he did does not take away from the original triumph.

My god, you were there as well, incredible, I didn't think you were that old.

Reading not your strong point then?

Posted

Umm, omitting that the 1932 revolution ushered in not the era of democracy and freedom but fascism and dictatorship? Omitting that 1932 revolution was not much different than any other subsequent coup?

People who got quoted here are very aware of Pibul's legacy, they just choose not to talk about it while shamelessly preaching freedom of thought and freedom of access to knowledge, especially in Prawit's case. He's the one endlessly harping how people have been brainwashed by the establishment. In this article he is doing exactly the same thing he's accusing "ultra-royalists" of - presenting one sided view of the history.

And with your wiki knowledge you make it sound like the the '32 revolution immediately ushered in Pibuls dictatorship. He didn't become PM until 1935. Pridi was responsible for the first attempt at a constitution for a constitutional monarchy, certainly something to celebrate. The fact that Pibul acted like he did does not take away from the original triumph.

What KIND of constitution he was aiming for is of major impact, it wasn't gonna fly.

And the results of any attempted coup going astray are part of the knock on effects.

There was a relatively stable situation being agitated by the late arrival of the

industrial and communication ages, and even more agitation by the short lived

Marxist successes around the world.

We see now how short lived, but some ideologues see it as

only the old ways winning rounds, not as their concept being untenable.

Tell that to Russia and China and Cuba, all turned capitalist except in name.

Or in Russia's case; Totalitarian except in name. But Russia always was that way.

The French left intellectual influences on the 20-30's HiSo educated sions also had an effect.

So we had some disafected younger HiSos who had become ideologues out of country,

coming back to start a coup, that compromised too much when it could not do what was intended,

and shortly gave way to decades of unstable Pseudo-Democracy vacillating with Totalitarians.

Bravo, wonderful date to celebrate.

If you cannot accept the political importance of changing an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy there is little point debating any further with you.

Posted

Umm, omitting that the 1932 revolution ushered in not the era of democracy and freedom but fascism and dictatorship? Omitting that 1932 revolution was not much different than any other subsequent coup?

People who got quoted here are very aware of Pibul's legacy, they just choose not to talk about it while shamelessly preaching freedom of thought and freedom of access to knowledge, especially in Prawit's case. He's the one endlessly harping how people have been brainwashed by the establishment. In this article he is doing exactly the same thing he's accusing "ultra-royalists" of - presenting one sided view of the history.

And with your wiki knowledge you make it sound like the the '32 revolution immediately ushered in Pibuls dictatorship. He didn't become PM until 1935. Pridi was responsible for the first attempt at a constitution for a constitutional monarchy, certainly something to celebrate. The fact that Pibul acted like he did does not take away from the original triumph.

My god, you were there as well, incredible, I didn't think you were that old.

Reading not your strong point then?

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.

Posted

Also the fact that reds and PTP are full of Phibul like characters but I can't spot a single Pridi.

I would say that there is one Red figure that has a slight resemblance to Pridi, but he's in exile in the UK and will probably never return.

Posted

"After the coup, people recognised that democracy was under siege and they went back to search for the meaning and origin of democracy in Thailand.” Events celebrating June 24 have grown bigger year by year since the 2006 coup said Chulalongkorn University historian Asst Prof Suthachai Yimprasert.

The above is from the original post from the Nation. It points out the importance of the events of 2006 as they relate to the 1932 coup anniversary and makes clear that the events currently can not be understood without understanding the actions of the people who caused the 2006 coup.

I agree with the history professor from Chulalongkorn that one can not really understand the meaning of The National Day without understanding what happened in 2006 and why the Thai population thought it was an assault on democracy.

Posted (edited)

Umm, omitting that the 1932 revolution ushered in not the era of democracy and freedom but fascism and dictatorship? Omitting that 1932 revolution was not much different than any other subsequent coup?

People who got quoted here are very aware of Pibul's legacy, they just choose not to talk about it while shamelessly preaching freedom of thought and freedom of access to knowledge, especially in Prawit's case. He's the one endlessly harping how people have been brainwashed by the establishment. In this article he is doing exactly the same thing he's accusing "ultra-royalists" of - presenting one sided view of the history.

And with your wiki knowledge you make it sound like the the '32 revolution immediately ushered in Pibuls dictatorship. He didn't become PM until 1935. Pridi was responsible for the first attempt at a constitution for a constitutional monarchy, certainly something to celebrate. The fact that Pibul acted like he did does not take away from the original triumph.

What KIND of constitution he was aiming for is of major impact, it wasn't gonna fly.

And the results of any attempted coup going astray are part of the knock on effects.

There was a relatively stable situation being agitated by the late arrival of the

industrial and communication ages, and even more agitation by the short lived

Marxist successes around the world.

We see now how short lived, but some ideologues see it as

only the old ways winning rounds, not as their concept being untenable.

Tell that to Russia and China and Cuba, all turned capitalist except in name.

Or in Russia's case; Totalitarian except in name. But Russia always was that way.

The French left intellectual influences on the 20-30's HiSo educated sions also had an effect.

So we had some disafected younger HiSos who had become ideologues out of country,

coming back to start a coup, that compromised too much when it could not do what was intended,

and shortly gave way to decades of unstable Pseudo-Democracy vacillating with Totalitarians.

Bravo, wonderful date to celebrate.

If you cannot accept the political importance of changing an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy there is little point debating any further with you.

If that was the point I was making, that repost might make sense.

It doesn't.

The point you are trying to change it too,

is the unintended side-effect of '32.

Edited by animatic
Posted

Also the fact that reds and PTP are full of Phibul like characters but I can't spot a single Pridi.

I would say that there is one Red figure that has a slight resemblance to Pridi, but he's in exile in the UK and will probably never return.

Personally I think that guy is an intellectually bankrupt seeker of attention. I also don't like his patronizing, know it all attitude, and obvious disdain for people who actually love the institution we are not supposed to discuss.

Pridi didn't return to Thailand because he thought it could turn controversial, dude in London feeds on controversy and is looking for a fight, albeit from the safety of the UK. He's also not in exile, he fled without even hearing his charges, there wasn't even an arrest warrant, he awarded himself "exile" status purely for self-aggrandizement.

Not to mention the caliber - he was a founder of a party with barely two dozen members.

Posted

^ All valid points... One point of resemblance though was that Pibul and Pridi were unlikely partners in the era of the original coup. Naturally, this partnership could not last and Pridi was set up (probably by Pibul rather than the Democrats as insinuated above) and spent the rest of his life in exile. The left-wing minority of the Reds are fellow-travellers with Thaksin's minions, but they will probably be disposed of as soon as they are not needed.

Has anyone else noticed that PT (as no doubt directed by Thaksin) came up with bail of the 13 arsonists, but aren't about to lift a finger to help idealists like Da Torpedo or Somyot or the Red Siam leader (Sutch-something or other), who have been jailed for the cause!

Posted

Also the fact that reds and PTP are full of Phibul like characters but I can't spot a single Pridi.

I would say that there is one Red figure that has a slight resemblance to Pridi, but he's in exile in the UK and will probably never return.

Personally I think that guy is an intellectually bankrupt seeker of attention. I also don't like his patronizing, know it all attitude, and obvious disdain for people who actually love the institution we are not supposed to discuss.

Pridi didn't return to Thailand because he thought it could turn controversial, dude in London feeds on controversy and is looking for a fight, albeit from the safety of the UK. He's also not in exile, he fled without even hearing his charges, there wasn't even an arrest warrant, he awarded himself "exile" status purely for self-aggrandizement.

Not to mention the caliber - he was a founder of a party with barely two dozen members.

Where did you get the thing about Pridi avoiding returning from? First his supporters attempted three coups against Phibun's regime* - then when he was in China he called for revolution to overthrow the military regime. In his later years in Paris, he wanted to come back but he wasn't allowed to because his potential influence upon students was feared. One piece he wrote, aimed at the 70s generation of students, details where he thinks Khana Ratsadorn went wrong (giving the military faction too much power and not introducing democracy soon enough IIRC) and advice on how the new generation of radicals could avoid making the same mistakes.

I know Jakrapob is a huge fan of Pridi and often quotes/discusses him in his articles for red magazines. I saw a picture of him the other day wearing a Pridi t-shirt.

*Which of course was actually a triumvirate with Sarit and Phao holding the real power, and Phibun trying to play them off against each other. Incidentally, I would say Phibun was more an authoritarian nationalist than a fascist, and in his latter years he seemed to be ambivalent about democracy. Sarit's regime was far harsher. If anyone is particularly interested in this, I recommend 'The Politics of Despotic Paternalism' by Thak Chaloemtiarana - I saw a copy recently at Kino in Central World.

  • Like 1
Posted

^ All valid points... One point of resemblance though was that Pibul and Pridi were unlikely partners in the era of the original coup. Naturally, this partnership could not last and Pridi was set up (probably by Pibul rather than the Democrats as insinuated above) and spent the rest of his life in exile. The left-wing minority of the Reds are fellow-travellers with Thaksin's minions, but they will probably be disposed of as soon as they are not needed.

It was definitely the Democrats (namely the Pramoj brothers) who spread the rumour that Pridi killed the King. Phibun was nothing to do with it. Seni even paid someone to shout it in the cinema. They had more reason to get rid of Pridi than Phibun did. Seni's brother-in-law was actually the one who tried the three pages. But it backfired on them... or rather they gained little in terms of political power in the long-run. Initially after the coup, Khuang became PM, but the military installed Phibun the year after anyway.

Has anyone else noticed that PT (as no doubt directed by Thaksin) came up with bail of the 13 arsonists, but aren't about to lift a finger to help idealists like Da Torpedo or Somyot or the Red Siam leader (Sutch-something or other), who have been jailed for the cause!

Surachai. Well, these are all LM prisoners, which PT can't touch for obvious reasons. But apparently life inside the jail has got better for them since the change of govt.

Posted

Where did you get the thing about Pridi avoiding returning from?

Read an interview a while ago, I think someone was recollecting meeting Pridi in France in the 70-s. You obviously know this stuff better than me and I won't argue if you believe I'm wrong.

Jakrapob is a demogogue, he can quote anyone he wants without affecting this basic fact about himself.

But I'm curious - were Pridi and Phibul really that different in their early days? Did they have different ideals and different ideas when they were planning 1932 revolution?

Incidentally, I don't think there's a gulf of difference between authoritarian nationalism and fascism, in my book they are synonyms, with fascism being a more effective label but also being constrained by historical examples of Italy and Germany and so easily deniable anywhere else.

Posted (edited)

But I'm curious - were Pridi and Phibul really that different in their early days? Did they have different ideals and different ideas when they were planning 1932 revolution?

Yes, there were major rifts among the promoters early on. Pridi favoured the formation of political parties and instructed People's Party officials to prepare for an election campaign in 1993 - after a discussion with Luang Wichit (though I believe they were friends, they held opposing political ideas, Wichit in many ways is the architect of Thai nationalism). Wichit wanted his conservative National Party to compete against the People's Party in the elections. The reasons why this didn't happen are quite complicated but basically can be put down to royalist manoeverings. In fact, it was the royalists that then smeared Pridi for his economic plan, calling it 'communistic' and forcing him into exile. Actually, whilst in exile, in an interview with Straits Times, he described himself as a 'democratic socialist' and said that the British Labour party were the party that were closest to his political views. Soon after this, junior promoters in the military, notably Phibun, decided they had to act swiftly and with force in order to stop the royalists gaining complete control of the government. Had elections been held, and Pridi not been exiled, we probably wouldn't be talking about Phibun now...

But as I say, it's quite complex and I'm certainly no expert on it.

Incidentally, I don't think there's a gulf of difference between authoritarian nationalism and fascism, in my book they are synonyms, with fascism being a more effective label but also being constrained by historical examples of Italy and Germany and so easily deniable anywhere else.

Yes... I think you're right.

Edited by Emptyset

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...