Dear Mark Scott, I would again request you to draw the right lessons from history. You seem to give undue emphasis on "violence" as though revolutions are won through "violence". What role did "violence" play in the historical February Revolution and the October Revolution of 1917? What are "Soviets"? What was the significance of the timing of seizure of power on 25 October 1917 (07 November)? When was the Second All Russian Congress of Soviets held? Why did Lenin give a call for transferring "All Power to the Soviets"? Violence was unleashed by the counter-revolutionaries; the Bolsheviks certainly had to ensure that they had the means to neutralize such violence. There was no way the Bolsheviks would have survived the onslaught without the support of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. Ultimately, mass support for the Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries among the working class and the peasantry was the key to the success of the revolution."Armed violence" can in no way be a substitute for the hard work that is necessary for raising the consciousness of the basic classes and eliciting mass support for the cause among them. The undue obsession with "armed violence" can contribute in a big way to fuel romantic notions of revolution and little else.
I am totally surprised at the flippant manner in which you spew scorn at "Marxist humanism" as though the concept of "humanism" is something to be ridiculed at. May I also point out that but for the power of public opinion the right-wing leadership of the U.S. would not have restrained themselves from using nuclear weapons on North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Iran. Yes, public opinion was not sufficient to restrain the U.S. from launching its barbaric attack on Iraq; that was due to the fact that the right-wing in the U.S successfully managed to divide public opinion in the aftermath of 9/11 with all the devious means at their command. Jayaprakash ======================== On 22 December 2010 01:40, Mark Scott <mark1scot...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ 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
