Comrades,
I'm not really sure what the correction here is that I am alluding other than
the fact of that many years ago when I was more involved with LRNA in more
direct ways it was easier to understand their position and that is what I have
based my current understanding on and that has led me to an incorrect
estimation of their position today. Therefore, I have confused their position
today.
I am not saying their position is wrong, however, the following quote from
LRNA's article, posted by Melvin to me amidst an absurd amount of verbiage and
false diatribe finally registered:
"Under today's qualitatively new conditions fascism represents the
bourgeoisie's struggle to align the superstructure with the changing nature of
private property relations. Fascism today seeks to facilitate a whole new
world
order based on private property without capitalism." (end quote)
The first part of this quote of LRNA's analysis is without question. The
second sentence is questionable and I did question LRNA on this matter. My
best friend and Comrade who is in Chicago and still very actively involved with
LRNA was a member of the editorial staff. In our conversation he explained
this "concept" of "private property without capitalism". His very first
remarks, after his chuckle, was that this "is so abstract that they should not
have written it without a detailed explanation" and then went on to tell me
that "they (LRNA editorial staff) do not know how this would develop". I then
asked this Comrade why they would make such an ambiguous statement if they
themselves did not know what they were saying. His response was that he agreed
with my assessment and himself has broached this very same criticism to which
it fell on deaf ears.
He did qualify this quote in saying that this is the very possible dialectical
outcome should bourgeois society continue to develop towards fascism. On this
point I also agreed but what is the reality is the class struggle in today's
society against capitalism and that is his position as well as LRNA's in
general. LRNA has no possible explanation as to how
fascism can develop into private property without capitalism. It is so vague a
concept at the moment that numerous arguements can be made for or against it
and most likely all would be neither 100% right or wrong.
I feel that LRNA was somewhat negligent in proposing such a statement without
any further explanation to support or qualify this statement because as I was
told it "should not be taken literally to the point where it becomes an
absolute position". I also agreed.
Going back to the dialectical possibility of this happening in some way, it
makes some sense but then again it does not.
One of the questions it poses in my mind is how can such a society even begin
to exist wherein private property is maintained by a class without capitalism?
I am not willing to split hairs here but capitalism as we know is a social
system wherein one class dominates another class and reaps super-profits by
exploiting the working-class. I am not willing to go into value and all of
that. My comments are generalized. Nevertheless, it is absurd that the
ruling-class can have a society in which they maintain private property but
without capitalism! It is the nature of capitalism - a society based on
exploiting others in order for the other class to realize their profit and
wealth. If such a society no longer existed it seems the bourgeoisie could no
longer realize their privielges based on wealth and profit because there would
be no class working to provide them this wealth through their exploitation!
This is such an abstract conception that it is ridiculous. This concept or
analysis is based on how capitalist society is becoming more and more
computerized and replacing workers. That is all well and good but it fails to
address how the bourgeoisie can obtain their wealth when there are no workers
because if the workers are left destitute then no one can purchase commodities
of any kind, thus, no profits can be realized by the bourgeoisie. To me this
is absurd, although, it does provide an answer as to the stage of development
of revolutionary activity wherein the masses are pushed to a point where they
say enough is enough. At this point, dear Melvin...Sir, the armed struggle
begins in the form of the mass insurrection.
It is this very possibility of the development of the fascist bourgeoisie
restructuring a society maintaining private property without capitalism that
would cause the rupture of class antagonisms into the advanced stage of
revolutionary development in the form of armed struggle. This armed struggle
has always implied the mass insurrection dear"Sir".
Marxism teaches us that a "leap" is part of a total of accumulative
contradictions culminating from the unity of opposites that goes from a
quantitative stage to a qualitative stage. Perhaps a rude explanation but
don't have the time to "sound Marxist" at the moment. Anyway, it is when the
system can no longer provide at all for the interests of the working-class that
they break away from the old and begin the new. At any rate, my point is is
that such a rupture in the class struggle will be realized and it is through
the complete comprehensive exposures of all the contradictions in capitalist
society that are the task of Marxist revolutionaries. The importance of these
comprehensive exposures in all aspects of capitalist society is to train and
prepare the working-class to seize power from the bourgeoisie. This seizure of
power could possibly come before such a society based on the maintaining of
private property without capitalism can be
completely structured by the bourgeoisie and this is one of the historical
lessons of the October Revolution wherein the Bolsheviks seized power before
all the conditions were set in place. It was Trotsky and his ilk that tried to
set back the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat then and it
has been a continual process of attempting to reverse the revolutionary
struggle of such reactionaries to this very present day.
So again, yes, Comrade f580 is most correct to say that certain communists are
nothing more than what I will call agents of the bourgeoisie. They will
continually try to avert the need for armed struggle and the forcibal
suppression of the bourgeoisie.
Even a "ten-year-old schoolgirl" will realize that the Marxist concept of the
armed struggle involves insurrection by the masses! But it also implies
firstly that Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries who are to be the vanguard
realize this need and PREACH it to the masses as instructed by Lenin.
I wish there were a few "ten-year-old schoolgirls" on this list, maybe there
would be more intelligent dialogue.
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
