Comrade,
First of all I object to you suggesting that I have given up my "faith" in
revolution and socialism. I am 16 years old. It is the worst time to join
the revolutionary movement since the contents of Archduke Ferdinand's skull
were sprayed over the back of carriage in Sarajevo, although finally things
are beginning to pick up again. Clearly I would not join a movement so
defeated, so on it's knees, if I was not a sincere Marxist and a
revolutionary. Perhaps one positive feature of such reactionary epochs is
the fact the insincere and careerists are fewer in number.
Just today I attended a meeting of the Greater Manchester Socialist
Alliance, where revolutionary parties have come together to gain a real
social base and intervene in the class struggle. Now I have my criticisms of
this alliance, particularly since my analysis of the Labour Party is still
one of a bourgeois workers' party and revolutionaries should form a united
front with its Left which still has a hard social base, whilst the SA is
boycotting it to a decree, but I am still participating. On the 30th of
September I am travelling to Coventry for the national conference of the
Socialist Alliance. On Monday, I am attending a Committee for the Peace in
the Balkans meeting, a coalition with a firm base in the workers' movement,
whose purpose is to oppose imperialist interventions in the Balkans, and the
continuing war against Yugoslavia (its national conference apparently drew
500 people a couple of months ago, even a year after the end of the war).
Does that not show my anti-imperialist credentials if you sink so low as to
ask for them? And later in September, I am travelling to Brighton to
demonstrate outside the Labour Conference and participate in a revolutionary
counter-conference. Satisfied, comrade?
I am a sworn revolutionary. However, as a Marxist, and as a Leninist, I
understand that proletarian revolution cannot be brought about by the
isolated actions of a few armed men, of individual terrorism here and there.
This will take the radicalisation of the proletariat with a firm
revolutionary leadership, and division and split within the ruling class;
and indeed, war often proves to be the midwife of revolution and provides
such conditions. Blanquism, individual terrorism, fails because it provides
a pretext for the ruling class to clamp down harder on the working class,
its isolation from the working class means no support or base is drawn from
them, it often disgusts a section of the population, and its targets are
replaced with no material change. Kill a police officer and someone else
will replace him, kill a state official and the position will soon be taken
by another, even kill a president and the successor will be standing by
ready. In short, individual terrorism cannot overthrow a ruling class and
bring another to power. That, I am afraid, is Marxism. What you seem to
propose is a mixture of Blanquism, Narodnikism and Stalinism.
The "Marxism-Leninism" you speak of is a creation of principally Zinoviev
who was later butchered on the grounds of being a Nazi spy by those who
claimed to uphold it. Since you are a Stalinist in the most technical sense
(which does not stop you being a comrade unless your organisation has
participated in the murder of working class militants), you should thereby,
I suppose, consider "Marxism-Leninism" to be a Nazi invention, or concocted
by an imperialist spy. Such are the ironies of history.
Also, your rhetoric is often nationalistic; for example, imperialism using
"our country", and your quarrel with the ruling class seems to be solely
their prostitution of your country to imperialism. But Turkey is an
imperialist country. Its ruling class is an imperialist bourgeoisie. It is
not as if you live in a semi-colonial country. And I am sorry, but you do
not live in a fascist country in the strict use of the term, and I would
suggest this is being used as a meaningless swearword - do you mean fascism
as in the rule of finance capital, etc?
I would love to know where imperialism claimed we were entering into a
revolutionary epoch. This seems very unlikely to me. They are actually quite
triumphant, so much so they proclaim the "End of History", which represents
the total confidence of the bourgeoisie to the extent they will declare
their absolute historical victory.
With warm regards
Owen
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
