Comrade Jayaprakash:
You stated:
"Kindly do not make a fetish out of "violence" by reproducing quotes that are
totally out of context; those quotes were made at a certain time in history
and under certain specific circumstances. Please note that "State" is the
embodiment of violence and that the ultimate aim of all communists is to
create conditions for the withering away of the "State", i.e., organised
violence. This aim should not be lost sight of when drawing appropriate
lessons from history."
I have to say that I agree with you and yet disagree. I do not make a fetish
out of reproducing quotes out of context. You are correct that they were
stated at a certain time in history and under certain circumstances as are all
of the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che and a host of other
Marxists. It is not just the quotes and who said what but, rather, what is the
essence of what they were saying and if their relevance holds true in our
period of history and our circumstances. I believe the quotes I used do in
fact have relevance and are very valid today as they were at the time they
written. It is not the quote itself that is relevant because of who said it
but the principle of what was said in relationship to the circumstances both
then and now. To dismiss quoting these great leaders we may as well throw away
all their writings and not use them but this is never going to happen, not with
me anyway and I will make no
apologies for my position.
I also disagree with your comment about the quotes as everything that has been
written by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others were written within the
context of their historical era so are we to simply disregard now their
writings. I don't think so. The use of these quotes does in fact speak to the
very principle of class struggle today although written in their period of
history and under their particular circumstances.
I do agree with your comments on the State but since we are under the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, their State, forces the violence on the
working-class the world over which is why there is armed resistance to the US
bourgeoisie. This State is not merely going to "wither" away. The bourgeois
State needs to be overthrown and again this is Marxism 101 and one would and
could quote Marx, Engels, etc. from their time period regarding this. Time
makes no difference as to the validity of scientific Marxism. It is true that
conditions have changed but those are external changes whereas the internal
contradictions remain the same.
The working-class today is still subjected to oppression and repression through
violence as as capitalism continues to deteriorate the ruling-class continues
to force the issue of violence upon the working-class. The working-class can
only respond in kind which is why Marx stated that capitalism produces its own
"grave-diggers" and the very essence of the class struggle is the object of the
working-class to seize power from the ruling-class and this will only be
accomplished through a violent armed struggle. Following the seizure of power
by the working-class they must then establish their "dictatorship" over the
ruling-class. The full intent of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to
consolidate the socialist revolution which is now victorious from the
counterrevolutionary onslaught of the remnants of the ruling-class which will
try to regain control of power in order to preserve their violent and
repressive social order based on exploitation.
One should not have to quote from the early Marxists as the essence of
dialectical materialism is evident enough of the presence of violence in the
class struggle. Because violence within the class struggle is a given it is
not a fetish nor do I make it such. It is only after the violence of armed
struggle, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its
consolidation over, most likely, a generation at least, does the violence begin
to subside with the development of genuine "class consciousness" of the entire
mass of people can the withering away of the socialist State begin and
communism be fully realized.
This is a very simplistic over-view, however, it is the basic scenario of
development. There is absolutely no way that socialism, let alone communsim
can be realized without the violence of armed struggle which is forced upon the
working-class. It is the very dialectics of this struggle that indicates one
class violently opposing the other class which further indicates that the
ruling class will not stop short of their counterrevolutionary overthrow of the
power held by the working-class which is called the dictatorship of the
proletariat for that very reason. Until the counterrevolutionaries are
eliminated the socialist State must remain in place in order to safeguard,
protect and consolidate the victorious socialist revolution and establishment
of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is only when counterrevolution has
been eliminated that communism will be realized and the State withers away and
according to Marx and Engels this process can
take generations to accomplish. The bourgeois State on the other hand must be
violently overthrown as it will not wither away as this is completely in
contradiction with scientific Marxism, thus, a revisionist notion.
It is true we are living in a different historical period and that conditions
have changed enormously since the days of Marx and Lenin but the very essence
of the class struggle that was written about then apply very much today as they
did then inspite of the time period and circumstances. This is Marxism 101
based on the science of historical and dialectical materialism arrived at by
these leaders.
The dialectics of historical materialism clearly indicate that what these great
leaders had to say about circumstances in their period of history apply to the
class struggle today inspite of the changes that have been made. If not, you
could not have arrived at the conclusions you did in the article you posted
which clearly indicates how the ruling-class will use violence to usurp power.
The very dialectics of class struggle make it plainly clear that it is a
struggle that will culminate in violence because the ruling-class forces the
issue of violence on the working-class. If violence was something that could
be attributed to the working-class then within the circumstances we face today
there would be mass uprisings all across the US, however, the working-class
does not want violence...they only want their rights to be treated fairly.
Hence, the working-class does not yet even realize the need for violence which
is why they remain oppressed by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
It is the bourgeois State that forces the issue of violence and represses the
working-class but as the working-class becomes more aware of the need to meet
violence with violence in order to gain their rights, in order to establish the
dictatorship of the proletariat, as their class consciousness develops, they
will meet violence with violence and not just because I say so. It is not just
because Lenin, Stalin or anyone else says so. It is because it is factually
based on the scientific foundations laid by dialectical materialism and
historical materialsm. It is called historical materialism because were are
able to learn from the circumstances and events of history and apply it to our
circumstances and events today. Again, this is Marxism 101.
We need to fully understand the total implication of what a dictatorship is and
the reason for it in order to understand the use of violence. One cannot
understand dictatorship by reading the Webster Dictionary. In the Marxist
sense, quoting if I may, from the Marxist Glossary:
"Rule by force of one class over another, or over other classes. In the
capitalist democracies we have the concealed dictatorship of the capitalists;
in the fascist countries, the open terrorist disctatorship of the big
capitalists. Proletarian Dictatorship is the open dictatorship of the
proletariat (in alliance with other toilers, the vast majority) over the former
exploiting minority of capitalists and landlords. NOTE: the word has no
reference to rule by one man or by a small clique or party"
The differentiation here is the "rule by force". The ruling-class enforces it
rule by force against the working-class. Force - violence - is forced upon us,
we do not want violence...we want equality, we want our rights to live and be
happy in life and all that this implies. We are not allowed these things
because the ruling-class uses force and violence to repress our striving to
attain these things. If violence was a fetish, if violence was something the
working-class wanted there would be mass uprisings all across the US as already
stated. I do not make a fetish out of violence and nor does the working-class
want violence, however, violence is forced upon us and until the working-class
comes to fully grasp its class consciousness the only violence at the moment
comes from the bourgeoisie.
When the working-class does realize its need to use violence to attain what
rightfully belongs to them then the class struggle will move out of the
non-violent arena into the violent arena. The dialectical essence of Marxism
then clearly indicates that armed struggle will become the order of the day and
that the working-class will establish its rule of force over the ruling-class.
Then we have to ask ourselves, is the violence over now?
Absolutely not.
But why we ask ourselves? Does not historical materialism provide that answer
as well? Yes it does. We look at the Soviet Union, China, Albania and do they
not reveal that the counterrevolutionaries were victorious over the
dictatorship of the proletariat and has not this counterrevolution been one of
violence? Again the answer is yes. Let's look at a more recent historical
example...Cuba. Has the counterrevolutionaries not time and time again used
violence to overthrow the Cuban Revolution? Yes they have on numerous
ocassions. You are right about Cuba being no match militarily and I agree with
you somewhat on your comment that it has survived largely by "public opinion"
but let me ask you, what has public opinion had to do with the US bourgeoisie's
unilateral or arbitary decision to invade Iraq or Afghanistan? Absolutely
none. What did public opinion have to do with Vietnam? None even in spite of
the immense antiwar movement
then. What did public opinion have to do with WW II where FDR imprisoned
activists. What did public opinion have to do with Lincoln where he imprisoned
not only activists but mayors, editors and even congressmen? None. What did
public opinion have to do with Nicaraugua and El Salvador? None.
In all these cases I say that public opinion had nothing to do with playing a
part in these events and in most cases that is true. However, I am sure this
has already been taken out of context by Melvin. My point in structuring my
answer in this manner is that simply saying public opinion is the stategy is an
abstraction. The real point is is that the class struggle will and must be
comprised of multi-faceted strategies to include developing public opinion as
well as violence.
The US bourgeoisie has clearly shown it cares less what public opinion is and
will use violence against whomever it chooses based on its prioritized agenda
of geo-politics. Public opinion of and by itself means nothing to the
bourgeoisie and the US bourgeoisie could overthrow Cuba in a heart beat
militarily. At the moment there are many hidden mechanisms at play and
although I have not given much attention to this particular issue, what I do
see happening at the moment is another Nicaragua wherein the CIA is attempting
to manipulate the masses to overthrow the Cuban Revolution much in the same
manner they did with the Sandanistas. So, even still, violence is still being
used against the Cuban Revolution only in an indirect strategy by the US
bourgeoisie through the use of proxies.
I have to completely disagree with you that public opinion makes much if any
difference to the US bourgeoisie either with Cuba or the rest of the world as
you say. Do you not see the violence that is sponsored directly and indirectly
by the US bourgeoisie the world over?
I think it is you who makes a fetish out of non-violence by advocating such an
abstraction and refusing to recognize the need for violence in conjunction with
"public opinion" which to me should be translated into developing the class
consciousness of the masses. As the class consciousness develops the full
spectrum of strategies will be applied which will include public opinion and
violence.
I assure you, the US bourgeoisie will not roll over simply because of public
opinion. The US bourgeoisie has never listened to the masses and the "founding
fathers" of the US feared the masses and have always considered us as inferiors
and if one really understood the Constitution and the goals of these founding
fathers one would realize that it was intended to secure their liberties and
those of a propertied class at the expense of a class without property.
Further, to illustrate this point, research Shay's Rebellion for one example of
how the ruling-class then used violence to suppress workers.
Consider these facts. From former research I draw these facts so they are
somewhat behind the actual facts today but for the purpose of this arguement I
pose them instead of spending time conducting new research.
The Department of Defense's (DoD) lists of US foreign ,ilitary bases and
installations do not mention numerous smaller facilities, nor did they mention
facilities in Honduras, where between 1,000 and 6,000 US troops were constantly
deployed during the Contra war against Nicaraugua.
The DoD also omits the growing presence in Peru and Columbia where the US
bourgeoisie has waged a war against Peruvian peasants and the Shining Path
guerillas. Also omitted are Saudi Arabian military bases which are merely
proxies for US bases.
The DoD furhter complicates matters because most large US bases include several
indiviual facilities that perform different functions. So...the estimate of
375 foreign military bases has been determined. In conjunction with this
number of foreign military bases, another exhaustive study conducted by William
Arkin and Richard Fieldhouse has determined there are more than 1,500 US
foreign military facilities established in the preparation for nuclear war.
In 1989, more than 525,000 US troops were deployed at bases and installations
around the world. These figures only relate to troops and bases outside the US.
The following information is also somewhat incomplete but is accurate in
depicting the violent nature of the US bourgeoisie.
According to the Foreign Affairs Division, Congressional Research, Library of
Congress, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1975, a revision of
the 1969 version, there was 68 instances of use of US troops abroad from
1798-1945. Again this is outside the US and I believe this figure to be
extremely low. However, they are the use of US troops and do not include the
number of CIA covert activities use of violence. Also to be considered are the
36 political assassination plots by the US bourgeoisie between 1949 and 1999.
These figures do not include the numerous assassinations in various parts of
the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by the CIA and
headquartered in the US. I have no figures at the moment for the millions of
proletarians killed as "collateral damage" by the US bourgeoisie's use of
violence the world over but let me give two examples of US civilians
intentionally assassinated because they became aware of
CIA covert activities thus killed to prevent them from becoming known -
Benjamin Linder in Nicaragua and Charles Horman in Guatemala. Nor does these
figures indicate the numerous assassinations by the political police in the US
of militant revolutionary figures like George Jackson, Johnathon Jackson,
Malcom X, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Alprentice Carter, Jon Huggins, Richard
Oaks, Rocky Madrid (wounded by a US sniper) Frank Clearwater, Pedro Bissonette,
Byron DeSersa, and Anna Mae Aquash to mention only a few. Public opinion did
not stop the US bourgeoisie from murdering these people in cold blood even
though these people were involved in high profile public circumstances.
Nor did public opinion prevent the mass slaughter of Native Americans because
as this violent and murderous part of US history fully illustrates is how the
US bourgeoisie manipulates "public opinion". Public opinion is conditioned by
the ruling-class' use of propaganda and this is seen throughout US history and
the very reason why some Marxists remain bourgeoiesified. History has been
written by white bourgeois historians in order to propagate the bourgeois
social system. Class consciousness is developing but it is not fully developed
or otherwise the US bourgeois system of capitalism and its dictatorship could
no longer be the power structure it is today.
No, I do not make a fetish out of violence but I do realize the very need for
it as supported by the great Marxist leaders past and present and I do reject
Marxist humanism.
Fraternally
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