Tag Archives: 6th October 1976

The overthrow of the Thai military dictatorship in 1973

The 14th October this year marks the 50th anniversary of the mass uprising that overthrew the military dictatorship in Thailand. It is still an important event with lessons for the struggle today. Three years ago, a youth-led mass movement made a failed attempted to kick out the current military dictatorship which is hiding behind bogus elections, after coming to power through a coup in 2014.

The military domination of Thai politics started soon after the 1932 revolution against the absolute monarchy, but its consolidation of power, until its overthrow in 1973, came with a military coup in 1957. Under the dictatorship at that time, trade union rights were suppressed and wages and conditions of employment were tightly controlled. By early 1973 the minimum daily wage, fixed at around 10 baht since the early 1950s, remained unchanged while commodity prices had risen by 50%. Illegal strikes had already occurred throughout the period of dictatorship, but strikes increased rapidly due to general economic discontent. The first 9 months of 1973, before the 14th October uprising, saw a total of 40 strikes.

In the period before 1973 there was a massive expansion of student numbers and an increased intake of students from working class backgrounds, especially at Ramkamhaeng Open University. The new generation of students were influenced by the revolts and revolutions which occurred throughout the world in that period, May 1968 in Paris, being a prime example. They were tired of the conservatism in society. Students started to attend volunteer development camps in the countryside in order to learn about the problems of rural poverty. In 1972 a movement to boycott Japanese goods was organised as part of the struggle against foreign domination of the economy. Students also agitated against increases in Bangkok bus fares.

In June 1973 the rector of Ramkamhaeng University was forced to resign after attempting to expel a student for writing a pamphlet criticising the military dictatorship. Four months later, the arrest of 11 academics and students for handing out leaflets demanding a democratic constitution, resulted in hundreds of thousands of students and workers taking to the streets of Bangkok. As troops with tanks fired on unarmed demonstrators, the people of Bangkok began to fight-back. Bus passengers spontaneously alighted from their vehicles to join the demonstrators. Government buildings were set on fire. The “Yellow Tigers”, a militant group of students, sent a jet of high-octane gasoline from a captured fire engine into the police station at Parn-Fa bridge, setting it on fire. Earlier they had been fired upon by the police. It was not long before the dictatorship crumbled and its leaders fled the country.

The successful 14th October 1973 mass uprising against the military shook the Thai ruling class to its foundations. It was not planned and those that took part had a multiplicity of ideals about what kind of democracy and society they wanted. But the Thai ruling class could not shoot enough demonstrators to protect their regime. It was not just a student uprising to demand a democratic constitution. It involved thousands of ordinary working-class people and occurred on the crest of a rising wave of workers’ strikes.

Success in over-throwing the military dictatorship bred increased confidence. Workers, peasants and students began to fight for more than just parliamentary democracy. In the two months following the uprising, the new civilian Government faced a total of 300 workers’ strikes. On the 1st May 1975 a quarter of a million workers rallied in Bangkok and a year later half a million workers took part in a general strike against price increases. In the countryside small farmers began to build organisations and they came to Bangkok to make their voices heard. Workers and peasants wanted social justice and an end to long-held privileges. A Triple Alliance between students, workers and small farmers was created. Some activists wanted an end to exploitation and Capitalism itself. The influence of the Communist Party of Thailand increased rapidly, especially among young activists in urban areas.

The Maoist Communist Party of Thailand failed to take part in the 1973 uprising because they feared a crack-down would wipe out their members. They also followed Mao’s strategy of a guerrilla war in the countryside to surround the cities. However, the party benefitted from the successful overthrow of the military.

The influence of the CPT reflected the rise of left-wing ideas among many people in Thai society. It was also reaction to the victory of communist parties in neighbouring Indo-China. The CPT was the only left-wing political party which had a coherent, although mistaken, analysis of Thai society. They advocated a nationalist armed struggle to end what they called the “semi-feudal, semi colonial” nature of society, rather than a working-class led revolution for socialism.

The party failed to prepare workers and students to repel the inevitable back-lash from the ruling class, which culminated in a bloody crack-down on the 6th October 1976. Before the crack down, the CPT withdrew to its guerrilla strongholds in the jungle. Later, they were joined by thousands of students who fled the city after the 1976 bloodbath. The CPT turned their backs on the power of workers in urban areas. But by the mid-1980s the CPT had collapsed due to its mistaken armed struggle and due to the fact that the Thai government established diplomatic relations with China and launched a campaign to welcome the students back to the cities under an amnesty.

Today, the youth-led protests of 2020 have dissolved into illusions in parliament, which operates under a military written constitution. Their demands for more freedom and democracy have not been met. At no time did the youth movement try to link up with the working class in building a mass movement, a mistake they share with the CPT back in the 1970s.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

(This article was commissioned by a Greek socialist newspaper, since in Greece they are celebrating 50 years since the Polytechnic uprising in November 1973. The demonstrators back then were explicitly inspired by Thailand.)

How to deal with Thai State Crimes

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Both the Commoners Party and the Future Forward Party have pledged to remove the influence of the military from Thai politics. This would involve re-writing the military constitution and scrapping the 20 year National Strategy; a laudable but impossible task without building a mass social movement. [See https://bit.ly/2O5ZNNx ]

In addition to destroying the political power and legacy of the military, it is important to punish state criminals who were responsible for violence. Without this, they will continue to enjoy impunity.

The Commoners Party has also stated that it wants to punish state officials who are guilty of state crimes, although there is little detail about how they would achieve this. What is also worrying is that they say that there is a “hidden history” of these events which needs to be exposed. Given that there have been many studies and publications about Thai state crimes, this sound a bit like an excuse to delay any action.

The fact of the matter is that we know who is responsible for various atrocities. [See http://bit.ly/1TKgv02  or   http://bit.ly/2d1iZbj ]

Those guilty of the 6th October 1976 blood bath are known, but they have all died of old age. However, when it comes to those who ordered the shooting of demonstrators on 14th October 1973, although Tanom Kittikachorn and Prapart Jarusatien are both dead, the third tyrant, Tanom’s son, Narong Kittikachorn is still alive. He needs to be brought to trial.

images

200px-ณรงค์_กิตติขจร
Narong Kittikachorn

We know the architect of the 1992 atrocities against pro-democracy demonstrators. It was coupster Suchinda Kraprayoon. He also needs to be brought to trial.

hqdefault
Suchinda Kraprayoon

We also know that Taksin Shinawat was responsible for the extra judiciary killings in the War on Drugs and also the killings of Malay Muslims at Takbai in 2004. He should be in the dock.

262284
Taksin Shinawat

Finally, Anupong Paochinda, Prayut Chan-ocha, Abhisit Vejjajiva and Sutep Tuaksuban all have blood on their hands from ordering the killings of pro-democracy red shirts in 2010. Prayut and other dictators also need to be prosecuted for staging military coups and destroying democracy. This is especially important given that the newly appointed heads of the army and air force have hinted that if there is “chaos” in the future there might have to be another coup.

Prayuth Chan-ocha
Prayuth Chan-ocha

1363-1504161561
Abhisit Vejjajiva and Sutep Tuaksuban

download
Anupong Paochinda

Bringing these tyrants to justice is not an easy matter. But it has been done in other countries like Argentina and South Korea. However, anti-military political parties need to be honest and open about what it will take to achieve this.

How to access my publications

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

cpt3

The Failure of Stalinist Ideology and the Communist Parties of Southeast Asia (1998). https://bit.ly/1OEfsJo 

13124929_1181060888592867_9078848768920258106_n

Thailand: Class Struggle in an Era of Economic Crisis (1999).   http://bit.ly/2kPNX9E  Book about the Thai labour movement.

120126_155008_01

From the city, via the jungle, to defeat: the 6th Oct 1976 bloodbath and the C.P.T. http://bit.ly/1TKgv02   or   http://bit.ly/2d1iZbj

coup-for-the-rich

A Coup for the Rich (2007).  https://www.scribd.com/doc/41173616/Coup-For-the-Rich-by-Giles-Ji-Ungpakorn or http://bit.ly/2aE7zc6  Book written in response to the 2006 military coup.

NGOlogo

Why have most Thai NGOs chosen to side with the conservative royalists, against democracy and the poor (2009).   http://bit.ly/1UpZbhh

BookCover2

Thailand’s Crisis and the Fight for Democracy (2010).  http://bit.ly/1TdKKYs  Book written during the continued crisis of democracy.

Red Yellow

Thai Spring? Structural roots of the Thai political crisis (2011). http://bit.ly/245WxhD

no-112 1

Lèse Majesté, the Monarchy, and the Military in Thailand (2011) http://bit.ly/1cLbFtr or http://bit.ly/2cexlW1

934811_378547118963344_903943074818231564_n

The Festering Sore: Thai State Crimes Go Unpunished (2012)   http://bit.ly/1qGYT9r

02411998

The Bloody Civil War in Patani (2013) http://bit.ly/2bemah3

TanksRed

The role of Thai Social Movements in Democratisation (2015). http://bit.ly/2aDzest

19กันยา

What led to the destruction of Thai democracy? (2016). http://bit.ly/2cmZkAa or http://bit.ly/2bSpoF2

o

Thai Military Re-adjusts its Relationship with the Monarchy (2017).  http://bit.ly/2xGDiSu Paper which looks at the role of the military and the monarchy after Pumipon. Also discusses the 20 year National Strategy for “Guided Democracy”.

 

The rise and fall of the Thai Communist Party

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

The Communist Party of Thailand (CPT) was established in the late 1920s and played an important role in the struggle against the military dictatorship from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. The high point of struggle for the CPT was when student activists started to support the party in the 1970s.

Many people are aware of the uprisings around the world in 1968. The struggles by Thai activists also formed part of this wave of radicalism, leading to the 1973 uprising which overthrew the Tanom military dictatorship. On 14th October 1973 half a million people, mainly young school and university students, but also ordinary working people, protested around the Democracy Monument. The wave of student revolts and the activism among young people in Western Europe and the United States were the inspiration which ignited the left-wing struggles in the early 1970s in Thailand. Libertarian left-wing ideas from the Western movements entered Thai society by way of news reports, articles, books, music and the return of Thai students from the West, especially art students in the first instance. The victory of Communist Parties in Indochina, after the USA began to lose the war in Vietnam, and Mao’s Cultural Revolution, also had a massive impact in igniting struggles for a new society in Thailand.

As always, the Thai ruling class reacted with violence against the rising left-wing movement, using armed thugs, soldiers and police. The height of this violence was the massacre at Thammasart University on 6th October 1976. This destroyed the democratic space created by the 1973 uprising and led directly to an intensification of the armed struggle in the countryside led by the CPT. Thousands of urban activists and students travelled to the CPT bases.

But the problem with the CPT’s Maoist strategy was that it more or less abandoned the city and the working class. The CPT argued that since the cities were the centre of ruling class power, a communist victory in Thailand would only come about by surrounding the cities with “liberated zones”. Their Maoist strategy meant that they never at any time planned to resist the right-wing backlash in Bangkok. Yet, since 1932, all significant social changes have taken place due to struggles in urban areas, especially in Bangkok. The CPT was also an authoritarian “top-down” Stalinist party and this did not sit well with the libertarian views of many students. In addition to this, the struggle by small farmers, which the Maoists favoured, was fundamentally a defensive and conservative struggle to survive, not a struggle for a future society.

What was missing from the CPT’s strategy in the late 1970s was trying to build the party among urban workers so that it could organise mass strikes. Previously the CPT had some influence among unions and large strikes had taken place. However, the turn to Maoism changed the party’s emphasis.

The CPT analysis of Thailand was that it was a semi-feudal semi-colony of the USA. The immediate aim of the struggle, according to the party, was for national liberation and capitalist democracy, which was called the “national democratic stage of the revolution”. The aim of building socialism was postponed to some future date. Yet Thailand was never a colony of the USA and feudalism had been abolished during the nation building process at the end of the 19th century. The party adopted a Stalinist/Maoist cross-class alliance policy of working with the military dictators, “progressive capitalists” and nationalists. At one time the CPT even supported General Sarit before he became a right-wing dictator. The repression carried out by the military against the CPT did not change the party’s policies towards “progressive capitalists” and nationalists. It merely meant that the party was forced to fight the military dictatorship, which was now characterised as being in alliance with US imperialism.

The lack of progress in the armed struggle, carried out from jungle hide-outs, and the fact that China established friendly relations with the Thai government threw the CPT into confusion. Most student activists were demoralised and returned to the city. The students were also unhappy with the authoritarian nature of the party. The destruction of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the European Stalinist regimes was the last nail in the coffin of the CPT.

Those who left the CPT jungle strong-holds and returned to mainstream society, while still being politically active, became divided into three main groups.

The first group eventually found a home in Taksin’s Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT) and the red shirts. They were attracted to TRT’s pro-poor policies and the Stalinist-Maoist policy of building alliances with “progressive business people” helped legitimise their alliance with Taksin. Pumtam, a prominent TRT politician, boasted that they had now “seized state power” without the privations of living in the jungle camps. Both Weng and Tida, UDD red shirt leaders, were once high ranking officials of the CPT.

The second group of activists set up NGOs and turned their backs on big picture politics. Their aim was to lobby the elites and use foreign funds to help poor villagers. They rejected the idea of the need for a progressive political party, believing that all parties would tend to authoritarianism. They also rejected representative democracy and wished to ignore the state. These anarchistic ideas de-politicised and weakened the NGOs and meant that they failed to build mass movements and any political power. Instead their NGOs functioned like authoritarian small businesses. When Taksin’s TRT came to power and used state funds to improve the lives of villagers in a significant manner, the NGOs turned their anger on the government which was making the previous efforts of the NGOs look irrelevant. But the NGOs lacked a mass movement and any political leverage. They therefore built a reactionary alliance with the yellow shirts and welcomed the intervention of the military against Taksin’s elected government.

The third group of activists who left the jungle became academics. Almost all of them drew the conclusion that “Socialism was finished”, despite the fact that what was really finished was Stalinism and the authoritarian State Capitalist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe. The real world choice was never just between Stalinist State Capitalism and free market Capitalism. There was always a third choice of “socialism from below” as represented by the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg. Many of these academics became right-wing apologists for the military and some cooperated with the military on anti-reform committees.

But the idea of “socialism from below” remains a living spark in some sections of Thai society, waiting to be ignited.