Singaporean Maoist Cult Leader Dies in UK Prison

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

PETALING JAYA: Cult leader Aravindan Balakrishnan who died in Britain last week was a self-styled Maoist who was in the mix of Malaysian and Singaporean student activism in London in the 1960s and 70s.

Nihilistic and anti-intellectual, Aravindan was a disciple of China’s Chairman Mao Zedong at a time when student activists of progressive politics had a keen sense of social justice and strove to create a non-racial, just and truly democratic society in their newly independent nations.

Calling himself “Comrade Bala”, he exhibited intolerant views in his early encounters with the students, many of whom shunned him; but he persisted and forced a number of students to drop their studies, convincing them that dropping out was a revolutionary act.

Following the rescue of three women, enslaved for decades, including Malaysian Siti Aishah Wahab in a Aravindan-run Maoist commune in 2013, some British newspapers branded Malaysian and Singaporean students from his era as being revolutionaries.

The same theme was regurgitated following the death of the left-wing extremist at the age of 81 in a British prison last Friday.

He had been jailed for 23 years in 2016 for offences including false imprisonment, sex assaults, including raping his daughter, and cruelty.

Link:https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2022/04/12/maoist-cult-leader-who-preyed-on-malaysia-singapore-students-in-uk/

Interesting case and a bit of a reminder of Singapore's old leftist history(before it was suppressed by the "socialist" PAP). Also one of the worst cases of how communist parties became increasingly cult-like and deranged as their cause lost it's mainstream relevance.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though abusive cults aren't just a far-left thing, of course.

[Coldstream]

Maoism lends itself to cult like behaviour more so than other left wing movements because so much of it is about rejecting the world/evidence of your own eyes. It’s why the Khmer Rouge/Shining Path were so much more extreme than Tankie or Trot revolutionaries

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Though abusive cults aren't just a far-left thing, of course.

Of course, but did find it an interesting remanant of pretty obscure bit of local history.

[PSOL]

Commune-models typically lead down this road. Dropping out from society is a red flag that the leadership are sex pests and you’ve given up.

Also, this guy was pretty irrelevant in the wider picture of the left™️ in both Britain or Singapore, so I don’t know why this warrants much attention given the cult was small and pretty irrelevant compared to more larger disasters.

Maoism lends itself to cult like behaviour more so than other left wing movements because so much of it is about rejecting the world/evidence of your own eyes. It’s why the Khmer Rouge/Shining Path were so much more extreme than Tankie or Trot revolutionaries

I’m going to need a citation on that.

The shining path did take the tactic of turning a figurehead into a charismatic symbol, which over time got flanderized, and the disaster with the “immortal science” line fits in well with what compromising to such lines of thinking leads to. Another note is that “Tankie” does not exist, and the thing is a lot of parties that toed the CPSU line either wilted away or got broken up from purges and splits. Those that originated from Trotsky’s camp, who are the most who follow conventional politics and try to change social democrats minds, doesn’t stop the behavior of the problem people of sectarianism and hierarchal leadership that causes abuse.

I think this goes past ideology or lines and goes right into how your group is structured when and where. If it is ran democratically as it can be with leadership in sync with the membership base and wider demographic of the people you try to attract, it isn’t a cult and is ran well. If it is some hierarchal organization with stacked leadership of yes men or uncompromising people, it will more likely than not lead to bad results.

[Coldstream]

Commune-models typically lead down this road. Dropping out from society is a red flag that the leadership are sex pests and you’ve given up.

Also, this guy was pretty irrelevant in the wider picture of the left™️ in both Britain or Singapore, so I don’t know why this warrants much attention given the cult was small and pretty irrelevant compared to more larger disasters.

Maoism lends itself to cult like behaviour more so than other left wing movements because so much of it is about rejecting the world/evidence of your own eyes. It’s why the Khmer Rouge/Shining Path were so much more extreme than Tankie or Trot revolutionaries

I’m going to need a citation on that.

The shining path did take the tactic of turning a figurehead into a charismatic symbol, which over time got flanderized, and the disaster with the “immortal science” line fits in well with what compromising to such lines of thinking leads to. Another note is that “Tankie” does not exist, and the thing is a lot of parties that toed the CPSU line either wilted away or got broken up from purges and splits. Those that originated from Trotsky’s camp, who are the most who follow conventional politics and try to change social democrats minds, doesn’t stop the behavior of the problem people of sectarianism and hierarchal leadership that causes abuse.

I think this goes past ideology or lines and goes right into how your group is structured when and where. If it is ran democratically as it can be with leadership in sync with the membership base and wider demographic of the people you try to attract, it isn’t a cult and is ran well. If it is some hierarchal organization with stacked leadership of yes men or uncompromising people, it will more likely than not lead to bad results.

Literally every Maoist regime has been about rejecting the outside world and a belief that the party is supreme. See: North Korea 1949-1994 (though they abandoned Maoism past 1994 they kept the Maoist culture), Khmer Rouge, Hoxhaist Albania, Shining Path, all of which advocated destroying/rejecting what came before in totality. Whether it was religion, culture, languages etc.

Trots want to change peoples minds, to do that they have to acknowledge the real world exists - Maoists don’t care about changing minds.

[S019]

RIP HP

[PSOL]

Commune-models typically lead down this road. Dropping out from society is a red flag that the leadership are sex pests and you’ve given up.

Also, this guy was pretty irrelevant in the wider picture of the left™️ in both Britain or Singapore, so I don’t know why this warrants much attention given the cult was small and pretty irrelevant compared to more larger disasters.

Maoism lends itself to cult like behaviour more so than other left wing movements because so much of it is about rejecting the world/evidence of your own eyes. It’s why the Khmer Rouge/Shining Path were so much more extreme than Tankie or Trot revolutionaries

I’m going to need a citation on that.

The shining path did take the tactic of turning a figurehead into a charismatic symbol, which over time got flanderized, and the disaster with the “immortal science” line fits in well with what compromising to such lines of thinking leads to. Another note is that “Tankie” does not exist, and the thing is a lot of parties that toed the CPSU line either wilted away or got broken up from purges and splits. Those that originated from Trotsky’s camp, who are the most who follow conventional politics and try to change social democrats minds, doesn’t stop the behavior of the problem people of sectarianism and hierarchal leadership that causes abuse.

I think this goes past ideology or lines and goes right into how your group is structured when and where. If it is ran democratically as it can be with leadership in sync with the membership base and wider demographic of the people you try to attract, it isn’t a cult and is ran well. If it is some hierarchal organization with stacked leadership of yes men or uncompromising people, it will more likely than not lead to bad results.

Literally every Maoist regime has been about rejecting the outside world and a belief that the party is supreme. See: North Korea 1949-1994 (though they abandoned Maoism past 1994 they kept the Maoist culture), Khmer Rouge, Hoxhaist Albania, Shining Path, all of which advocated destroying/rejecting what came before in totality. Whether it was religion, culture, languages etc.

Trots want to change peoples minds, to do that they have to acknowledge the real world exists - Maoists don’t care about changing minds.

Look, I hate getting into specificity arguments too, but at least be accurate in your claims.

[Coldstream]

Commune-models typically lead down this road. Dropping out from society is a red flag that the leadership are sex pests and you’ve given up.

Also, this guy was pretty irrelevant in the wider picture of the left™️ in both Britain or Singapore, so I don’t know why this warrants much attention given the cult was small and pretty irrelevant compared to more larger disasters.

Maoism lends itself to cult like behaviour more so than other left wing movements because so much of it is about rejecting the world/evidence of your own eyes. It’s why the Khmer Rouge/Shining Path were so much more extreme than Tankie or Trot revolutionaries

I’m going to need a citation on that.

The shining path did take the tactic of turning a figurehead into a charismatic symbol, which over time got flanderized, and the disaster with the “immortal science” line fits in well with what compromising to such lines of thinking leads to. Another note is that “Tankie” does not exist, and the thing is a lot of parties that toed the CPSU line either wilted away or got broken up from purges and splits. Those that originated from Trotsky’s camp, who are the most who follow conventional politics and try to change social democrats minds, doesn’t stop the behavior of the problem people of sectarianism and hierarchal leadership that causes abuse.

I think this goes past ideology or lines and goes right into how your group is structured when and where. If it is ran democratically as it can be with leadership in sync with the membership base and wider demographic of the people you try to attract, it isn’t a cult and is ran well. If it is some hierarchal organization with stacked leadership of yes men or uncompromising people, it will more likely than not lead to bad results.

Literally every Maoist regime has been about rejecting the outside world and a belief that the party is supreme. See: North Korea 1949-1994 (though they abandoned Maoism past 1994 they kept the Maoist culture), Khmer Rouge, Hoxhaist Albania, Shining Path, all of which advocated destroying/rejecting what came before in totality. Whether it was religion, culture, languages etc.

Trots want to change peoples minds, to do that they have to acknowledge the real world exists - Maoists don’t care about changing minds.

Look, I hate getting into specificity arguments too, but at least be accurate in your claims.

Every word is accurate, if you disagree it’s a failure to understand Maoist theory or the movements in question.

[PSOL]

Commune-models typically lead down this road. Dropping out from society is a red flag that the leadership are sex pests and you’ve given up.

Also, this guy was pretty irrelevant in the wider picture of the left™️ in both Britain or Singapore, so I don’t know why this warrants much attention given the cult was small and pretty irrelevant compared to more larger disasters.

Maoism lends itself to cult like behaviour more so than other left wing movements because so much of it is about rejecting the world/evidence of your own eyes. It’s why the Khmer Rouge/Shining Path were so much more extreme than Tankie or Trot revolutionaries

I’m going to need a citation on that.

The shining path did take the tactic of turning a figurehead into a charismatic symbol, which over time got flanderized, and the disaster with the “immortal science” line fits in well with what compromising to such lines of thinking leads to. Another note is that “Tankie” does not exist, and the thing is a lot of parties that toed the CPSU line either wilted away or got broken up from purges and splits. Those that originated from Trotsky’s camp, who are the most who follow conventional politics and try to change social democrats minds, doesn’t stop the behavior of the problem people of sectarianism and hierarchal leadership that causes abuse.

I think this goes past ideology or lines and goes right into how your group is structured when and where. If it is ran democratically as it can be with leadership in sync with the membership base and wider demographic of the people you try to attract, it isn’t a cult and is ran well. If it is some hierarchal organization with stacked leadership of yes men or uncompromising people, it will more likely than not lead to bad results.

Literally every Maoist regime has been about rejecting the outside world and a belief that the party is supreme. See: North Korea 1949-1994 (though they abandoned Maoism past 1994 they kept the Maoist culture), Khmer Rouge, Hoxhaist Albania, Shining Path, all of which advocated destroying/rejecting what came before in totality. Whether it was religion, culture, languages etc.

Trots want to change peoples minds, to do that they have to acknowledge the real world exists - Maoists don’t care about changing minds.

Look, I hate getting into specificity arguments too, but at least be accurate in your claims.

Every word is accurate, if you disagree it’s a failure to understand Maoist theory or the movements in question.

Outside of the Shining Path and very loosely the Khmer Roug, none of the other groups and countries took much inspiration from the theoretical works of Mao, the Chinese civil war, or anyone else in the CCP. This is just wrong and you clearly do not know what you are talking about. And no, your periodical saying otherwise is not the be all end all of the matter.

[Coldstream]

Commune-models typically lead down this road. Dropping out from society is a red flag that the leadership are sex pests and you’ve given up.

Also, this guy was pretty irrelevant in the wider picture of the left™️ in both Britain or Singapore, so I don’t know why this warrants much attention given the cult was small and pretty irrelevant compared to more larger disasters.

Maoism lends itself to cult like behaviour more so than other left wing movements because so much of it is about rejecting the world/evidence of your own eyes. It’s why the Khmer Rouge/Shining Path were so much more extreme than Tankie or Trot revolutionaries

I’m going to need a citation on that.

The shining path did take the tactic of turning a figurehead into a charismatic symbol, which over time got flanderized, and the disaster with the “immortal science” line fits in well with what compromising to such lines of thinking leads to. Another note is that “Tankie” does not exist, and the thing is a lot of parties that toed the CPSU line either wilted away or got broken up from purges and splits. Those that originated from Trotsky’s camp, who are the most who follow conventional politics and try to change social democrats minds, doesn’t stop the behavior of the problem people of sectarianism and hierarchal leadership that causes abuse.

I think this goes past ideology or lines and goes right into how your group is structured when and where. If it is ran democratically as it can be with leadership in sync with the membership base and wider demographic of the people you try to attract, it isn’t a cult and is ran well. If it is some hierarchal organization with stacked leadership of yes men or uncompromising people, it will more likely than not lead to bad results.

Literally every Maoist regime has been about rejecting the outside world and a belief that the party is supreme. See: North Korea 1949-1994 (though they abandoned Maoism past 1994 they kept the Maoist culture), Khmer Rouge, Hoxhaist Albania, Shining Path, all of which advocated destroying/rejecting what came before in totality. Whether it was religion, culture, languages etc.

Trots want to change peoples minds, to do that they have to acknowledge the real world exists - Maoists don’t care about changing minds.

Look, I hate getting into specificity arguments too, but at least be accurate in your claims.

Every word is accurate, if you disagree it’s a failure to understand Maoist theory or the movements in question.

Outside of the Shining Path and very loosely the Khmer Roug, none of the other groups and countries took much inspiration from the theoretical works of Mao, the Chinese civil war, or anyone else in the CCP. This is just wrong and you clearly do not know what you are talking about. And no, your periodical saying otherwise is not the be all end all of the matter.

With all due respect, you are completely wrong. The links between these groups and Maoist theory are so patently obvious I cannot in good faith understand how you can deny them. Now you and I are clearly not going to agree, but I’m writing this for anyone reading this thread who is unfamiliar - Hoxhaism, Juche and certainly the Khmer Rouge are all Maoist inspired/derived ideologies - you can no more deny it than deny Maoism is a Marxist ideology.

Idk if you yourself identify as a Maoist and that’s why you are so defensive, but if you are I’ll just say this (specifically) is not a criticism of the Maoist ideology, and I’ve no doubt there are good people who subscribe to it, and that there are intellectual arguments for it etc but a point about how Maoist theory can easily lead to this sort of tyranny. Perhaps I ought to have said “can” in my original post to clarify that point.

[PSOL]

Oh yea I can, because Hoxhaism was just the developments and theories of the Albanian revolutionaries mainly formed from their prior experience and from the conflict with Yugoslavia and later Kruschev. Yes there was fraternization between the CCP and Albanian communists, but it wasn’t like a direct causal relation to form what became known as “Hoxhaism”. “Anti-revisionism” as a movement wasn’t just led by Mao or defined by the line of the CCP.

The Kim family and Pol Pot’s posse did not get their inspiration from their activities from the Chinese communists, most of the former’s experience was in fighting for the Soviet army and being taught then as a volunteer, along with incorporating weird mystical Korean philosophy that would not fly in China. The latter’s main influence was his experience in the pan-Indochinese Communist party, which when it was together was a fractious mess, and his own interpretation of communism and practical application of running a country which was so eclectic and *not* like what the Chinese or anyone else were ever doing that it would be wrong to lump them together.

What cannot be said about any of these movements is the broad application that they were personality cults with undemocratic and unrepresentative mechanisms or the complete lies that they attempted to “destroy” the “past” given all the references to the peasant and nascent worker culture they had in cultural output or the sheer diversity of party systems between each organization/country/movement.

Anyway, given Mao did not advocate for communes, did not say that the movements outside China should or could repeat how they conducted themselves, and generally was for female emancipation—the guy mentioned in the OP is not representative of “Maoism” or the wider left.