Comrade Kale,
You are correct that it is a class war we fight and it will be a literal
violent armed struggle and only a Marxist deviant will make any and all
attempts to negate the violence of class struggle. Every great Marxist leader
from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che and numerous others have said this
and it is actually not a metter of who said it it...it is clearly a matter of
materialist dialectics and scientific Marxist theory which is why it was said
by all great Marxist leaders past and present.
Only a bourgeois apologist that speaks out of the anti-Marxist position of
"Marxist humanism" would negate the class this struggle and this is why such an
apologist maintains a immense predisposition to embrace the bourgeoisie
believing in a revisionist notion that capitalism will merely morph into his
theory "economic communism" where the abundance of wealth and resources can be
merely handed out like christmas presents to everyone and all will be fine.
Such a repugnant notion is revision and is a deviance of scientific Marxism and
this revisionists challenge to you to explain yourself is just a tangent
attempting to lead you off into a deadend discourse of his mumbo jumbo
revisionist theories. It clearly shows his oportunism in trying to negate
Marxism and replace it with his own distorted concepts of Marxism in order to
gain some moral high ground - something a revisionist can never do.
Bourgeois ideologues today characterise armed struggle -- whether it be the
grenade attacks of the Azanian People's Liberation Army (APLA) in South Africa,
or the IRA's bombs, as 'outmoded extremism', or the violence of armed struggle
in general a dangerous relic of the past that threatens the moderate, civilized
path represented by negotiations - a product of non-violence.
Communists recognize that the right to self-determination necessarily includes
the right of an oppressed people to choose the means by which they conduct
their liberation struggle. Class warfare is a movement of self-determination
against the dictatorship of the US bourgeoisie and any so-called,
self-proclaimed Marxist that is squeamish on the question of violence and armed
struggle against the US bourgeoisie is not only indicative of their
squeamishness on revolutionary, anti-imperialist violence in general; it also
reveals their deep-seated hostility and chauvinism towards a revolutionary
struggle that directly threatens US imperialism as well as their own
opportunism position of privilege in bourgeois society. This position has
nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism.
"'The Marxist-Leninist doctrine on class struggle and the dictatorship of the
proletariat affirms the role of violence in revolution, makes a distinction
between unjust, counter-revolutionary violence and just, revolutionary
violence, between the violence of the exploiting classes, and that of the
masses." (General Vo Nguyen Giap, 'The Political and Military Line of Our
Party', Selected Writings)
As Marxists, therefore, we are not dealing with the question of violence in
general, but of the legitimate violence of the working-class against its
oppressor, whether that takes the form of the organized armed struggle waged by
the National Liberation Army of Vietnam against French, Japanese and US
imperialism, the rocks and stones of the intifada, or a campaign of bombs on
the streets of the US.
The taking up of arms has proved to be a necessary and indeed inevitable
response by the working-class to the constant, organized brutality and
oppression that is US imperialism. US Imperialism knows no other mode. By what
other means does this idealist of Marxist humanism think the oppressed peoples
of the world should oppose the armed brutality of a ruling class that will stop
at nothing to protect its own interests?
For the facade of "democracy" that masks US imperialisms naked interests is
rapidly stripped away when those interests are challenged: after the revolution
of 1979, the Nicaraguans freely elected the Sandinistas to power, only to be
terrorised and browbeaten into choosing, less than a decade later, a candidate
more acceptable to Washington. What happened to the much-heralded 'democratic
elections' in Angola when the "wrong" candidate won?
What has happened with every president in the history of the US? A continual
and gradual elimination of rights for the working-class while the ruling-class
grows fat off the sweat and blood of the working-class. This is the gift of
every US president to include Lincoln, FDR and now Obama that our
self-righteous Marxist humanist has lauded and voted for. A vote that
translates into a continued repression of the working-class. Who is it that
should be denounced here?
The arguments peddled by this deviant Marxist humanist to undermine armed
struggle denies this reality, and are a naive and dangerous distraction. Lenin
made the point clearly: while recognizing that parliamentary democracy might in
certain periods be a useful tool for the working class, he warned:
"...tomorrow your ballot paper is taken from you and you are given a rifle or a
splendid quick-firing gun -- take this weapon of death and destruction, pay no
heed to the mawkish snivellers who are afraid of war; too much still remains in
the world that must be destroyed with fire and sword for the emancipation of
the working class." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 21) The reality of the
class struggle - Class War - is violence, not because we, as Marxists, or the
working-class, desire it...but because it is forced upon us by the US
bourgeoisie and their dictatorship in order to preserve their vile, brutal and
oppressive social system. This Marxist truism and principle is again stated by
one experienced in the class war against the US bourgeoisie:
"Violence is the universal objective law of all thorough national liberation
revolutions." (General Vo Nguyen Giap, ibid)
As communists, we want to see the working class take power. We recognize that
the revolutionary process may go through all sorts of transformations, that it
may be bought off, that it may stop before "thorough" liberation is achieved.
Only if, within that movement, the working class is armed and organized can it
ensure that the liberation struggle is brought to a socialist conclusion.
James Connolly warned the Irish Citizens' Army shortly before the Easter
Rising:
"In the event of victory, hold on to your guns, as those with whom we are
fighting may stop before our goal is reached. We are out for economic as well
as political liberty."
All too often, bourgeois apologists like Melvin have ridden to victory on the
backs of the struggle of the working class; it is the working class who do, in
George Jackson's words, most of the fighting and most of the dying. What
inspires the fighters of the working class is not a love of violence, in which
they have always borne the severest losses, but the knowledge that only force
of arms can guarantee victory -- for "there is no successful liberation without
violence" (George Jackson, Soledad Brother).
In Vietnam, in Cuba, in the Soviet Union, throughout the world, the struggle of
the working- class for power has been fought through bitter and bloody battles.
It is a little late for socialists to be squeamish about revolution. Indeed,
even after victory, the warning to "hold on to your guns" remains imperative.
14 countries invaded the Soviet Union immediately after the revolution. Does
our Marxist humanist really think that the US bourgeoisie would not walk into
Havana tomorrow if the Cubans did not possess weapons?
As communists, then, we defend absolutely the right of the oppressed people of
the world to take up arms against imperialism -- and not put them down until
victory. Those who abandon this position, should indeed be "ruthlessly
dismissed from the ranks of the supporters of the revolution". For as Lenin
said of the renegade Kautsky:
"(he) has to resort to all these subterfuges, sophistries and falsiflcations
only to excuse himself from violent revolution, and to conceal his renunciation
of it, his desertion to the side of the liberal labour policy, the side of the
bourgeoisie. That is the crux of the matter".
And so it is with the Marxist humanist deviant, Melvin, he will go to great
lengths to revise Marxism to suit his opportunism of privilege in bourgeois
society by resorting to character assassination, falsifications, sophistries,
and subterfuges through his pedantics.
For Lenin, as well as every other Marxist of the Bolshevik ranks, it is clear
what must be done with bourgeois apologists and Marxist humanists who what to
denounce not me, for I could care less about this piss ant deviant, but do
denounce Class War and Class Struggle there is only one course of action to be
taken against such revisionts:
"It is not enough to take sides on the question of political slogans; it is
also necessary to take sides on the question of an armed uprising. Those who
are opposed to it, those who do not prepare for it, must be ruthlessly
dismissed from the ranks of the supporters of the revolution, sent packing to
its enemies, to the traitors or cowards; for the day is approaching when the
force of events and the conditions of the struggle will compel us to
distinguish between enemies and friends according to this principle". (V.I.
Lenin, 'Lessons of the Moscow Uprising', Collected Works, Vol. 11)
Melvin can denounce me all he wants, I am only one of thousands of messengers
who agitate for the dictatorship of the proletariat. To denounce Class War -
the class struggle - is the highest form of opportunism and revisionism,
therefore, I not only denounce this revisionist but call for his expulsion.
This list is for the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism and not for its
denouncement and negation as this revisionist Melvin continually attempts.
Fraternally
Mark Scott
--- On Mon, 12/20/10, waistli...@aol.com <waistli...@aol.com> wrote:
From: waistli...@aol.com <waistli...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu
Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 8:27 PM
I do not understand the questions below in the context of the statement
produced. Please explain or reformulate. Advocacy of extermination of
individuals as they constitute class; and a call for "violent extermination"
of
these individuals is akin to the reality of German fascism and Indian
genocide.
Waistline.
In a message dated 12/20/2010 3:13:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kale_moshaa...@yahoo.com writes:
Doesn't Marx say that the only War is Class War?
How do you expect to win a war for the Worker?
*********
From: _waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com)
<_waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) > Subject: [MLL] I denounce
the statement
below advocating . . . . . To: _marxist-leninist-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu_
(mailto:marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu) Date: Monday, December 20,
2010, 3:10 PM
I denounce the statement below advocating the violent extermination of
people/classes, and consider such advocacy political terrorism, unacceptable to
a discussion list such as this.
I have no connection with or anything to do with individuals advocating
extermination - in this case violent extermination, of individuals as these
individuals constitute themselves into classes.
I further admit to having no political or personal connection, personal
private conversations, and/or personal private contact, with the author below.
Nor have I every engaged in any discussion of extermination of
people/classes with anyone.
Waistline
In a message dated 12/18/2010 8:10:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
__mark1scot...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:_mark1scot...@yahoo.com) writes:
You are such a fraud it is unbelievable. From the moment you started
referring to me slanderously years ago, especially in regards to my past
military service, is when the so-called name calling began initiated by you.
It was you who began the slander and referring to you as a deiviant,
apologist and such is in line with describing a revisionist. Look at all the
writings of Lenin and others in their references to deviants.
I make no hidden insinuations here...I have absolutely no respect for you
so let's get it clear now because I will not lower myself to your gutter
standards again.
Let's look at the archives "dude", here is what created my animosity
towards you according to what you wrote "dude":
"I mention this Mark because you fucked with the wrong nigga."
"You are a fool and thug."
These are only 2 of the many name calling references you started with me
yet want to self-righteously claim you don't resort to name calling. These
two quotes of name calling was made by you because I said I believed in the
violent extermination of the US bourgeoisie which was written on Friday,
Dec 30, 2005. The article was entitled by you RE: Yu Chi Chan - Black
Panthers 2, Mark as murderer and Terrorist.
You so hypocritically love to turn everything on its head and pretend you
are so principled but you are nothing but a bourgeois loving revisionist
pretending at Marxism. It was you who called me a murderer and terrorist -
not the other way around "dude". You will go to any length to slander
someone and then pretend to be so self-righteous. Why don't you go whine and
snivel to the moderators like usual! There is no polite way of saying how
much I detest you as a fraud so I will leave it at this
LRNA clearly states that fascism is alive and well in the US and I will be
glad to post their articles if needed.
Mark Scott
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
