In Western reporting, media coverage and among the liberal middle class ideologues of Western political science, when observing and analyzing protest movements, “democrats”, Twitter revolutionaries / Twitter youth ”, middle class, the international community and the military, perhaps even elites, appear as the acting subjects. It is noticeable that in most cases a holistic class analysis never takes place, not even the working class, immigrant and migrant workers and farmers are perceived, named or even desired as participating or main acting subjects. This was also the case with the protests in Burma / Myanmar.

Also annoying when communication scientists and political scientists see all political events from a media-sociological perspective, or when artistic circles assess protests according to whether they develop aesthetic or new creative forms of action. As if the whole thing was just a funny, colorful happening, a happy art performance and an entertaining event.But by this way you can gain fame with anacademic doctoral or seminar theses as an academic vulture who hopes for a doctorate through it, but hardly any knowledge of society as a whole with these partial aspects, not to mention solidarity or your own political standpoint on the protests. Especially when 68 veterans revive their own youth revolt as a revival.

In addition to this young, inexperienced generation in Burma, whose class composition is also not clear, as well as the democratic national bourgeoisie, which Aung San Suu Kyi represents as a representative of its own economic empires and large landowners, and the military, it is also important that Burma’s working class now wants to go on a general strike . To what extent parts of those rebellious youth, who are also recruited from the middle and upper classes and better-off students, like the national bourgeoisie in general, have an interest in an independent labor movement and peasant movement remains to be seen and is questionable.

As long as they see them as independent trade unions within the framework of a workers‘ representation that is contained and controlled by the international bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie, and as useful auxiliary troops, this may still be accepted. But even a general strike alone will not be of any use, because according to Mao, power comes from the barrel of the gun. People always talk about THE military, trying to crack the upper strata of the military through sanctions, which oppose the old, evil, corrupt General Min Aung Hlaing. But I haven’t read anything about the simple idea that the military base are poorly paid and forcibly recruited peasant and worker sons, that should activly encouraged for the organization of soldiers‘ councils and the dismantling of the military instead of being massacred. That is why I wish the Burmese opposition movement a little more Bolshevism.

While some sections of the democracy movement hope that Aung San Suu Kyi could return and democracy restored, there are also parts within the NLD that could come to terms with the generals, especially since the evil General Min Aung Hlaing is currently getting advice from Thailand´s dictator Prayhut who shoiws him how the military could erect a democratic facade with a general as civil politician. So back to the facade democracy of Aung San Suu Kyi as before or to a facade democracy brand Thailand with the top military as formal civil politicians. The more determined sections hope that a liberal democracy could be established without the dominance of power by the military.

It is also unclear how the foreign powers feel about it. ASEAN, Japan and India are calling for Aung San Suu Kyi to be released, but are not imposing any sanctions, preferring what is known as silent engagement, especially since ASEAN is still divided. The USA and the EU have imposed targeted sanctions, also in the hope of getting parts of the Burmese military to release Aung San Suu Kyi again and to oppose the evil General Min Aung Hlaing. In the case of China, it is still unclear how it will act.

China has nothing against authoritarian dictatorships or military dictatorships, has issued no condemnations or sanctions, nor called the military coup a military coup, is itself a neototalitarian one-man dictatorship, but conversely, it also had very positive relationships with the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi, especially since that Burmese military allowed the former sham democratization and facade democracy mainly because it feared that it would become too dependent on China and that Burma would become an extended colony of Yunan and China. But especially since there are also geopolitical interests, be it the conflict with the USA and India, be it that Burma, along with Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, is an important choke point with regard to the new Silk Road, a pipeline to Yunan is to be laid, although Myanmar is itself opposed the construction of a Chinese dam.

It is also possible that Beijing will wait and see who the winner of the conflict will be, not position itself too clearly and stick to its alleged non-interference in internal affairs for the time being and wait for further developments the youthful Burmese opposition in the anti-Chinese milk tea alliance, which includes the democratic protest youth of Thailand, Hong Kong and Taiwan, especially with sympathizers from Japan and India and wants to build a pan-Asian anti-Chinese-democratic front, participates and gains influence. The UN now wants the UN Security Council to condemn the military coup in Burma and it will be seen how China reacts. It will probably not agree, but it still has the option of abstaining or vetoing. Let’s see if Russia takes on the role of the bogeyman, should China abstain. But it is more likely that China will use a veto to undermine Western interference and sanctions.

The Burmese military wanted to diversify economic and political relations with non-Chinese and western countries and attract investments into the country by means of sham democratization by the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi. Within the military, it is calculated to what extent they could become dependent on Beijing or not,if they want to become a comprador bourgeoisie instead of a national bourgeosie, what political demands the respective parts of the protest movement have, to what extent the power of the military as its own economic empire and political power remains untouched, perhaps also by means of a new facade democracy without the one bad general in which the military is at risk of being charged with corruption or repression, or of receiving an amnesty or selective amnesty. At the moment, however, General Min Aung Hlaing is still setting the tone, the military does not yet show any internal factional cracks and at the moment one seems to be primarily thinking about a facade democracy like Thailand under General Prayhut. But whether this will go so smoothly and whether the opposition will accept it remains to be seen.