Dear comrade Scott[y] Well..... the cat's got my tongue. What can I say. You've said it all. Bravo Scotty!! Bravo, Bravo!!
The Bourgeois State police kill a youth in NYC practically every week and get away with it. One day, I say, people are just gonna start shooting back. Now, I'm an old tool maker/ machinist, raised Catholic, born of working class parents.... my mother became a teacher, many brothers..... quite a loving and peaceful family.... and I say #$%$^&^&^ the bourgeoisie. You've stated it quite eloquently comrade Scott! Can I just say this though...... the working class has different ethics than the blood thirsty capitalists, Imperialist, Fascist, Zionists. And so, too often, that's why we get screwed. But, I'd rather keep my proletarian morals... and we just don't use the word "exterminate" a people, at least not with the connotations implied. Stalin did say to "eliminate the Kulacks as a class", but despite the Trots, the practice was not to "exterminate" them a la Hitler. We merely wanted to eliminate the class, as a class. Please don't argue with me as you've got your hands full. I respect you're tenacity on this very difficult subject. I know that the working class warriors and the bourgeois flunkies will have to fight it out while our class do their thing... that's why we have soldiers. I was a Senior Airman in the Air Force, and my father was a soldier in Korea, and many of my Puerto Rican cousins were injured in that war. We understand what fighting means. The working class is a revolutionary class, despite that some here deem us as reactionary and symbiotic to the capitalist class, but what do they know? I'm not one for many words. yours, f580 --- On Tue, 12/21/10, Mark Scott <mark1scot...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Mark Scott <mark1scot...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 12:10 PM 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 _______________________________________________ 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
