Giles Ji Ungpakorn, The Communist-Marxist-Leninist Living Evidence of Thaksin's Lese Majeste
( Last edit 2009-06-01 )
Giles Ji Ungpakorn got on the red-shirts stage, wearing bright red-shirt to condemn the Lese Majeste law. Later, with his publication, "A Coup For The Rich", he was charged by the police of committing Lese Majeste. He jumped bail in February 2009 and left his teaching post at Chulalongkorn University for Britain, claiming that he is not a Thai, but a half Chinese half British. His articles proved himself as a faithful in what he preaches, Marxism-Leninism Communism.
Below are comments by Michael H. Nelson, Center for the Study of Thai Politics and Democracy, King Prajadhipok Institute, on books writen by Giles Ji Ungpakorn during the past decade.
Ungpakorn, Ji. 1996. The Struggle Against the Military for Thai Democracy. [?]: Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University. (=Working Paper No. 55) 26 pp.
The author’s hero is the Bangkok working class and its struggle for democracy. In his attempt to elevate its place in Thai historical writings, he first reinterprets historical events (1932, 1973, 1992) to show that the working class had, in fact, substantial part in them, unfortunately without providing any systematic review of primary or secondary accounts. For readers who have not been convinced by his preceding presentation, the author proposes to eliminate the problem of social categorization altogether by using the “Marxist” definition of class according to which everyone who does not own the means of production belonged to the working class. Consequently, by definition, almost every urban and many rural Thai citizen belong to this working class, hence its dominating role in promoting democratization in Thailand. This trick also solves the problem of the “new myth of the middle class [that] has been created, [and] which further disguises the central role of the working class.”
Ronayos's Comment : It is a silly twist and lies to include unawakened majority of labourers and farmers in the 1932, 1973, 1992 in the rise-up democratic movements, in order to over-price communism.
Ungpakorn, Ji. 1997. The Struggle for Democracy and Social Justice in Thailand. Bangkok: Arom Pongpangan Foundation. 130 pp.
As this essentially is a political manifesto, there does not seem to be a need for an academic abstract. Instead, let the author himself describe his perspective: “Socialism is the most complete form of democracy because socialism means the democratic control of economic production as well as the trappings of political office. Only with socialism can we have production for human need [is this the same as the ‘collective need’ mentioned below; is there any difference to human or collective wants/needs; do humans now produce for non-human or inhuman need and how is this logically and practically possible?].
Yet, socialism has, for decades, been buried under the authoritarian hand of the followers of Stalin or Mao. In Russia, Eastern Europe, China and many third world countries, socialism has come to mean a strong authoritarian and oppressive state. This is the opposite of what Marx or Lenin stood for. [Marx, certainly, but Lenin? Wasn’t it him, together with Trotzky, who set in motion what Stalin later perfected?] The Stalinist view of socialism has been a weakening force in the struggle for freedom, democracy and justice in Thailand. The time has come to reclaim socialism, even in Thailand, for it is clear that Thai capitalist economic development alone is not solving the problems of poverty, oppression and ill health.” (p. 12)
The author wants to change Thailand’s political-economic order to a socialist system, i.e., “the common democratic ownership of the means of production by the workers [one wonders exactly what this may mean in practice as the author rules out state-ownership, i.e. the conventional definition of socialism], so that production can be organized for collective need, rather than profit or accumulation” (p. 117). Who is supposed to decide what the collective need is, and what will happen to those who disagree, e.g. because they consider profit and accumulation as their human need as well as the collective need?
Ronayos's Comment : It is another silly twist and lies to condemn authoritharianists who indeed exploited socialism, just to make him look better. Giles himself preaches deceitful authoritarianistic communism which is got caught here.
Ungpakorn, Ji Giles. 1999. Thailand: Class Struggle in an Era of Economic Crisis. Hong Kong: Asia Monitor Resource Centre; Bangkok: Workers’ Democracy Book Club. 118 pp.
Another political pamphlet by Giles who has been successful in establishing himself as what must be the most dogmatic and sectarian Marxist-Leninist author in Thailand. It is theoretically bizarre to say that Rama V has been the “ruler of Thailand’s first capitalist state in the 1870s” (p. 7). In order to argue against the assumption that middle class or civil society were naturally pro-democratic he goes as far as stating, “the German Nazi party was fundamentally a middle class party” (p. 97), with his sole source being—Trotzky! The concluding three sentences of this publication read, “However, at the end of the day, strengthening trade union struggles alone will not bring about the transformation to socialism. To do that, workers need a Marxist party with political clarity. An important part of that clarity must come from a proper assessment of the failure of the CPT (Communist Party of Thailand) and a clear understanding of the nature of the modern working class under capitalism.” (p. 116)
Ronayos's Comment : It is another silly twist and lies to market communism at the price of condemning trade union struggles.
Ungpakorn, Ji. 1999. “Three Stages in the Development of the Thai Capitalist State.” Asian Review 11 (1997): 1-26.
The three stages mentioned in the title are (1) “The absolute monarchy: formation of the first capitalist state (Rama V-1932)”; (2) “Military domination of the capitalist state (1932-1980s)”; and (3) “Bourgeois domination of the [capitalist] state (1980s-present)”. As the authors sees it, it was the “mainly working class mass movement”, though some other groups are conceded a role, that weakened the power of the military and increased the scope of democracy. Unfortunately, though, the working class had been poorly organized and lacked political self-confidence which made it possible for the bourgeoisie to reap the benefits of the working class struggle and achieve “its present overwhelming political domination of the Thai capitalist state” (p. 26).
Ronayos's Comment : It is another silly twist and lies to include Bourgeois domination for communist success. However, actually, a decade after his book was writen, it sounds strange that he does not respect the Bourgeois's rise up against the corrupt Capitalist Thaksin's regime. Instead, he and his communist colleagues wholeheartedly turn to support the corrupt capitalist.
Thai Politics Bibliography
Compiled and annotated by Michael H. Nelson
Center for the Study of Thai Politics and Democracy
King Prajadhipok Institute