The US and other western powers

are pushing for the opposition to come

to power [the saffron revolution?]

This doesn't represent in

any way a love for democracy

It is merely a means of increasing the spheres

of influence of western imperialism

We see how imperialism has two weights

and two measures when it comes to using

terms such as "revolution" and "democracy"

For imperialism "democracy" means

the untrammelled rule of capital

Any hint at genuine mass, workers' participation

in the political affairs of a country

is seen as "dictatorial"

We see this in the way they define

the Venezuelan revolution and Chavez' socialism

There's Something Fishy about the Blanket

Western Media Coverage of the Myanmar Revolt

No one can have any doubts about the brutal nature of the Myanmar regime. It is indeed one of the most brutal and corrupt in the world and the masses have every reason to protest.

Their living conditions have fallen dramatically from what was already a very low level. But Bush and Brown seem to have no ability to feel shame or embarrassment at making their statements expressing their indignation.

While they have unleashed the most awful conditions on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, while they continue to have very good relations with brutal regimes like that in Saudi Arabia, after decades of supporting military coup after military coup, they suddenly discover a love for democracy in Myanmar.

Genuine socialists defend the right of the Myanmar masses to decide their own destiny, to remove this oppressive regime and replace it with a government that defends their real interests.

But they are not going to get that from the USA or Britain, or from the EU or any other imperialist power.

The present "opposition" will also not grant the people their wishes. They are merely exploiting the genuine discontent of the masses to ride on their backs to power. They are not representatives of the masses.

What we have is a struggle for spheres of influence, particularly between the USA and China.

India also has an important stake and has been in competition with China to get control of the raw materials that Myanmar is rich in.

As in the Ukraine, in Georgia and many other similar situations, the USA has been manoeuvring to get its puppets installed in power. And Myanmar is no different.

The US want to squeeze China out and impose a "democratic" regime that will be more compliant to the demands of imperialism.

Any such "democratic" regime would apply the policies of the World Bank and the IMF, i.e. the policies dictated by imperialism, which would include widespread privatisation, cuts in social spending and a general attack on the already miserable standard of living of the masses.

One only has to look at what has happened in the Ukraine after the so-called "Orange revolution" to understand this.

That is why we must distinguish between the genuine aspirations of the people and the aims and objectives of the Western-backed "Opposition."

Divisions within the Regime

As we write, reports keep coming in of further measures of repression with mass arrests and shootings taking place. There are also, however, indications that the regime is divided on how to proceed from here.

Some of the officer caste is more inclined to open a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi. She has the moral authority to rein in the masses.

But for her to do that, she would have to show that some gains have been made, and that would mean the regime opening up towards some kind of transition to "democracy".

They would also have to combine this with some economic measures to alleviate somewhat the pressure on the masses.

Aung San Suu Kyi

As we have seen the lead came initially from the young Buddhist monks, around which a mass movement has developed, but they too do not have their own political voice.

Thus they have turned to Aung San Suu Kyi and the National league for Democracy. This woman, thanks to her years under house arrest has built up the moral authority to emerge as "leader" of the mass movement.

What we have to underline is the fact that she and her party were not the promoters of this movement. The movement is a reaction to the terrible conditions the masses are living under.

However, although she has not promoted the movement, she will most likely be the main beneficiary of that movement.

Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of one of Burma's "independence heroes" and has been built up as "the living symbol of Burmese aspirations for a better life", as The Financial Times has described her.

However, some historical "facts" can help shed some light on the background of this woman. Her father actually collaborated with the Japanese against the British during the Second World War.

In this he had at his side Ne Win, the man who was to lead the 1962 coup. When the Japanese were in retreat these two "heroes" switched sides and joined the British.

So much for the "anti-imperialism" of these two gentlemen. Many years later we see the daughter of Aung San, Suu Kyi, being used as an instrument of imperialist policy, this time of US imperialism.

The cynicism of imperialism and of their paid strategists can be seen in the adoration of Aung San Suu Kyi in the West.

She is the totemic leader of an opposition that snugly fits western bourgeois 'ideals'.

The Myanmar opposition want a form of capitalism more in line with the interests of imperialism. On this basis both the Generals and their opponents are in opposition to the real interests of the toiling masses.

Back in 1988 the mass movement could have toppled the regime had it had a correct leadership with a genuinely revolutionary and socialist perspective.

The solution was not in sowing illusions in the "market" but in wresting power from the military and replacing it with genuine workers' and peasants' power.

This would involve not privatisation, but state-owned planned economy under the democratic control of the workers and peasants through democratically elected bodies.

Because no such leadership existed, since then Aung San Suu Kyi and her party have built up their authority and are now able to fill the vacuum.

This means the masses in Myanmar will pay a heavy price. It is their movement that will eventually bring down the rotten military caste that is presently in power.

On the back of this movement the bourgeois opposition will come to power.

They will then proceed to accelerate the process of privatisations and opening up to the world market.

The resources of the country have already been plundered by foreign powers, in particular China.

This plundering will multiply a thousandfold and the Myanmar masses will be no better off.

For Imperialism "Democracy" Means the Untrammelled Rule of Capital

China is being called to play a major role in defusing the situation in Myanmar.

Normally China prefers to stick to its policy of not interfering in the "internal affairs" of a country when such events take place.

The Chinese regime brutally dealt with the Tienanmen protests nearly 20 years ago and at the time stuck to the position that other countries shouldn't meddle in their domestic affairs. But this policy cannot hold any longer.

China now has big investments in Myanmar and wants guarantees that those investments are safe. It is also Myanmar's biggest trading partner.

As many commentators have explained the Chinese regime is not concerned about "democracy".

How can it be, when there is no such "democracy" in China? What they are concerned about is stabilising the Burmese regime. China also has its internal problems, with growing social polarisation and widespread discontent.

They fear that the masses in China at some point in the future could draw some lessons from the present situation in Myanmar.

In the recent period the Burmese regime had been going through the motions of drawing up a democratic constitution, but the text was written in such a way as to leave the main levers of power still in the hands of the military.

China had been pressurising the regime to speed up this process. Their idea was clearly to loosen up somewhat from the top in order to avoid an explosion of discontent from below.

The military have left it a bit late, and as soon as they announced their stringent economic measures in August the whole situation imploded.

Jiang Yu, China's foreign ministry spokesperson announced yesterday that, "China hopes that all parties in Myanmar exercise restraint and properly handle the current issue so as to ensure the situation there does not escalate and get complicated."

In the next few days we can therefore expect diplomatic pressure on the regime to increase.

It would not be surprising to discover that discreet lines of communication are being built between elements within the army officer caste and the opposition, brokered by western diplomats.

This would not be in contradiction with an escalation of repression over the next few days.

The increased violence on the part of the regime could enrage the masses to such a degree that a wing of the military could be forced to open up negotiations in order to calm the situation down.

However long it takes, the end result will be a movement in the direction of some kind of bourgeois democratic regime.

The Chinese regime would clearly have preferred to avoid such a scenario, as this would loosen their grip on the country.

The USA and other western powers are pushing for the opposition to come to power. This does not represent in any way a greater love for democracy. It is merely a means of increasing the spheres of influence of this or that imperialist power.

This explains the widespread publicity being given to the movement in Burma.

So far the biggest rally we have seen has been between 70,000 and 100,000, depending on which reports one reads.

This is an impressive movement. No one can have any doubt about the courage of the demonstrators in the face of a brutal military apparatus.

But if we consider that the population of Burma is around 50 million, it is still rather small compared to movements we have seen in other parts of the world.

We should recall that in Mexico at one stage during the protest movement against electoral fraud last year, there were three million people on the streets of Mexico City.

The movement had a mass participation that lasted for months. But what kind of media coverage did that movement get?

The official media did not offer us scenes of the rallies in Mexico City. On the contrary, they played the whole movement down. Organs such as The Economist and Financial Times, which are now talking of "revolution" in Burma, denied such a movement was taking place in Mexico.

Why the difference? It is very clear! In Burma the outcome of this movement will be to bring to power a bourgeois opposition that is already closely linked to imperialism.

In Mexico imperialism was backing Calderon and feared the masses that were rallying behind Lopez Obrador.

In Burma, imperialism wants to see this regime brought down so that a government they can "do business" with can be brought to power. In Mexico the politician they can "do business" with is the man who led the blatant electoral fraud.

We see how imperialism has two weights and two measures when it comes to using terms such as "revolution" and "democracy".

For imperialism "democracy" means the untrammelled rule of capital.

Any hint at genuine mass, workers' participation in the political affairs of a country is seen as "dictatorial". We see this in the way they define the Venezuelan government.

Therefore, while we support the aspirations of the courageous Burmese masses in their protest and in their attempt to bring down this brutal military regime, we also maintain a sense of proportion and do not close our eyes to the manoeuvres of imperialism.

And although the dominant idea in people's minds is that the opposition is working for democracy and the downfall of dictatorship, we know that there is more to it than that.