@Ananta I don't understand why Mr. Ananta keep sending his same reply for any message under different subjects. I request him to give his views on the message, not the SAME DAFODWAM prop. please. Hope you will try to understand.
Revolutionary Regards, Sandeep On 15 January 2011 16:33, ananta ACHARYA <dafod...@gmail.com> wrote: > Aims and programmes of DAFODWAM[Democratic Action Forum Of > Dalits,Women And Minorities] are emobodied in its name itself. here > Dalits mean scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward > communities. DAFODWAM is not frontal organisation of any Political > Party, but it is very much aware of social and political incedents of > the india which is defacto upper caste hindu state .Financially it is > dependent on co-thinkers, not on Government[s][ central or state] or > west based funding organisations[ usually known as funded NGO]. For > more information contact ananta acharya- 30-2 N P RD. KOLKATA 55 > INDIA.PHONE- [0] > 9331858854...anantaacharya1...@gmail.com...dafod...@gmail.com Jun 3 > delete ananta > > > http://lh6.ggpht.com/_XVhPHwtm5oY/SzSvknB7RJI/AAAAAAAAAF0/e9iPb6YrSDI/s400/cLASS%20cASTE%20rELATIONS%20copy.jpg > CLASS CASTE RELATIONS-MARXIST APPROACH,first english publication of > DAFODWAM[DEMOCRATIC ACTION FORUM OF DALITS, WOMEN AND MINORITIES] is > just published..available at world view[jadabpur university campus], > book mark, new horizon book trust, Pati ram, manisha, manab mon. book > stalls near rashbehari crossing and bbd bag telephone bhaban... For > more call [0]9331858854... dafod...@gmail.com.... DAFODWAM-30-2 NP RD > ..KOLKATA-55 > > DAFODWAM thinks that India is a de facto upper caste Hindu state and > Brahmanism derived from Manu Sanghita is still the guiding philosophy > of Indian rulling classes. Untill the abolition of caste system and > discrimination based on gender and religious community there is no > chance of victory of class struggle, in whatever form. And this book > will help those people who are trying to build up a real democratic > India free from caste discrimination and caste division > > On 1/13/11, Mark Scott <mark1scot...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > By Sam Marcy (May 14, 1992) > > The brutal suppression of the Los Angeles insurrection offers a classic > > example of the relationship of bourgeois democracy to the capitalist > state. > > The statistics most eloquently demonstrate the relationship. > > > > The number of arrests in Los Angeles County alone as of May 5 is 12,111 > and > > still rising. The number of injuries has reached a staggering 2,383. > Several > > hundred are critically wounded. Thus the number of dead at > present--55--will > > undoubtedly continue to rise. > > > > All this has to be seen in light of the repressive forces amassed by the > > city, state and federal government: 8,000 police, 9,800 National Guard > > troops, 1,400 Marines, 1,800 Army soldiers and 1,000 federal marshals. > > (Associated Press, May 5) > > > > At the bottom of it all > > Marxism differs from all forms of bourgeois sociology in this most > > fundamental way: all bourgeois social sciences are directed at covering > up > > and concealing--sometimes in the most shameful way--the predatory class > > character of present- day capitalist society. Marxism, on the other hand, > > reveals in the clearest and sharpest manner not only the antagonisms that > > continually rend asunder present-day bourgeois society but also their > > basis--the ownership of the means of production by a handful of > millionaires > > and billionaires. > > > > Bourgeois sociology must leave out of consideration the fact that society > is > > divided into exploiter and exploited, oppressors of nationalities and > > oppressed. The basis for both the exploitation and oppression is the > > ownership of the means of production by an ever-diminishing group of the > > population that controls the vital arteries of contemporary society. They > > are the bourgeoisie, the ruling class. At the other end of the axis is > the > > proletariat of all nationalities, the producer of all the fabulous > wealth. > > Material wealth has been vastly increasing along with the masses' > > productivity of labor. But only 1 percent of the population amasses the > > lion's share of what the workers produce while a greater and greater mass > is > > impoverished. > > > > Flattering `the people' > > Especially during periods of parliamentary elections as in the U.S. > today, > > bourgeois sociologists are full of effusive praise for "the people." Each > > and every capitalist politician embraces "the people" with what often > > becomes disgusting flattery. The people are everything during periods > when > > the bourgeoisie needs them most of all, as during its many predatory > wars. > > Indeed, at no time is the bourgeoisie so attached to the people as when > it > > is in deepest crisis. > > > > But the people--the unarmed masses--become nothing, not even human > beings, > > when they are in the full throes of rebellion against the bourgeoisie's > > monstrous police and military machine. Does not the Los Angeles > insurrection > > prove all this? > > > > No amount of praise, no amount of flattery can substitute for a clear-cut > > delineation of the class divisions that perpetually rend society apart. > > To the bourgeois social scientists the masses are the object of history. > > Marxist theory, on the other hand, demonstrates that the masses are the > > subject of history. Where they are the objects of history they are > > manipulated as raw material to suit the aims of ruling class > exploitation. > > They become the subject of history only when they rise to the surface in > > mass revolutionary action. > > > > Their rising, as in Los Angeles, is what Karl Marx called the locomotive > of > > history. Their revolutionary struggle accelerates history, bringing to > the > > fore the real character of the mass movement. > > > > To speak of the people in general terms, without cutting through the > > propaganda to reveal the relations of exploiter to exploited, of > oppressor > > to oppressed, is to participate in covering up the reality. > > > > Oppression of a whole people > > Most indispensable for an understanding of contemporary society is the > > relation between oppressor and oppressed nationalities. One cannot apply > > Marxism to any meaningful extent without first recognizing the existence > of > > national oppression--the oppression of a whole people by capitalist > > imperialism. This is one of the most characteristic features of the > present > > world reality. > > > > This concept above all others must be kept foremost if we hope to > understand > > what has happened in Los Angeles and in other major cities of this > country. > > The insurrection and the way it is being suppressed closely follow the > > exposition by Frederick Engels in his book "The Origin of the Family, > > Private Property and the State," and later brought up to date by Lenin in > > "State and Revolution." > > > > What is the state? What is democracy? > > > > Bourgeois sociologists and scholars, and above all capitalist > politicians, > > always confound the relationship between the two. They often treat them > as a > > single phenomenon. In reality, the relation between democracy and the > state > > is based on an inner struggle--between form and essence. > > > > The state can take on many different forms. A state can have the form of > a > > bourgeois democracy; it can be a monarchy; it may be ruled by a military > > junta. And in modern society, on the very edge of the 21st century, it > may > > have a totalitarian or fascist form. > > > > Whatever its form, its essence is determined by which class is dominant > > economically and consequently also dominant politically. In contemporary > > society, this means the rule of the imperialist bourgeoisie over the > > proletariat and the oppressed nationalities. > > > > Bourgeoisie needs different forms of rule > > The bourgeoisie cannot maintain its class rule by relying solely on one > > particular form of the state. It can't rely only on the governing > > officialdom--even those at the very summit of the state, even when they > are > > solely millionaires and billionaires. Under such circumstances, should > there > > be an imperialist war or a deep capitalist crisis that leads to ferment > > among the masses, the bourgeois state would be vulnerable to > revolutionary > > overthrow. > > > > But the state is not just the officialdom--who presume to govern in the > > interest of all the people. The state in its essential characteristics is > > the organization, to quote Engels, of a "special public force" that > consists > > not merely of armed men and women but of material appendages, prisons and > > repressive institutions of all kinds. > > > > The decisive basic ingredient of the state is the armed forces with all > > their material appendages and all who service them. Most noteworthy are > the > > prisons--more and more of them--calculated to break the spirit of > millions > > of the most oppressed while pretending to some mock forms of > rehabilitation. > > All the most modern means--mental and physical--are used to demoralize > and > > deprave the character of those incarcerated. > > > > These repressive institutions, this public force appears so omnipotent > > against the unarmed mass of the oppressed and exploited. But it stands > out > > as the very epitome of gentility and humaneness when it comes to > > incarcerating favored individuals, especially the very rich, who have > > transgressed the norms of capitalist law. > > > > In general then, the Los Angeles insurrection shows that democracy is a > veil > > that hides the repressive character of the capitalist state. The state at > > all times is the state of the dominant class. And the objective of the > > special bodies of armed men and women is to secure, safeguard and uphold > the > > domination of the bourgeoisie. > > > > Growth of the state > > Engels explained that in the course of development of capitalist society, > as > > the class antagonisms grow sharper, the state--that is, the public > > force--grows stronger. > > > > Said Engels, "We have only to look at our present-day Europe where class > > struggle, rivalry and conquest has screwed up the public power to such a > > pitch that it threatens to devour the whole of society and even the state > > itself." > > > > Written more than 100 years ago, this refers to the growth of militarism. > > The sharpening of class and national antagonisms had even then resulted > in > > larger and larger appropriations for civilian and military personnel > > employed for the sole purpose of suppressing the civil population at home > > and waging adventurist imperialist wars abroad. > > > > The state grows in proportion as class and national antagonisms develop. > > Democracy is merely a form which hides the predatory class character of > the > > bourgeois state. Nothing so much proves this as the steady and consistent > > growth of militarism and the police forces in times of peace as well as > war. > > The ruling class continually cultivates racism to keep the working class > > divided, in order to maintain its domination. This is as true at home as > it > > is abroad. The forces of racism and national oppression have been > > deliberately stimulated by Pentagon and State Department policies all > across > > the globe. > > > > Marxism on violence > > After every stage in the struggle of the workers and oppressed people, > there > > follows an ideological struggle over what methods the masses should > embrace > > to achieve their liberation from imperialist monopoly capital. There are > > always those who abjure violence while minimizing the initial use of > > violence by the ruling class. They denounce it in words, while in deeds > they > > really cover it up. That's precisely what's happening now. > > > > Yes indeed, they readily admit the verdict in the Rodney King beating was > > erroneous, unfair. But--and here their voices grow louder--"The masses > > should not have taken to the streets and taken matters into their own > > hands." Their denunciation of the violence of the ruling class is subdued > > and muffled-- above all is it hypocritical, a sheer formality. It's an > > indecent way of seeming to take both sides of the argument when what > follows > > is in reality a condemnation of the masses. > > > > In times when the bourgeoisie is up against the wall, when the masses > have > > risen suddenly and unexpectedly, the bourgeoisie gets most lyrical in > > abjuring violence. It conjures up all sorts of lies and deceits about the > > unruliness of a few among the masses as against the orderly, law-abiding > > many. > > > > Marxism here again cuts through it all. The Marxist view of violence > flows > > from an altogether different concept. It first of all distinguishes > between > > the violence of the oppressors as against the responsive violence of the > > masses. Just to be able to formulate it that way is a giant step forward, > > away from disgusting bourgeois praise for nonviolence. It never occurs to > > any of them to show that the masses have never made any real leap forward > > with the theory of nonviolence. Timidity never made it in history. > > > > Indeed, Marxists do prefer nonviolent methods if the objectives the > masses > > seek--freedom from oppression and exploitation--can be obtained that way. > > But Marxism explains the historical evolution of the class struggle as > well > > as the struggle of oppressed nations as against oppressors. > > > > Revolutions, force and violence > > As Marx put it, "force is the midwife to every great revolution." This is > > what Marx derived from his study of the class struggle in general and of > > capitalist society in particular. > > > > None of the great revolutions has ever occurred without being accompanied > by > > force and violence. And it is always the oppressor--the ruling class and > the > > oppressing nationality--that is most congenitally prone to use force as > soon > > as the masses raise their heads. > > > > In all the bourgeois revolutions in Europe, this new would-be ruling > class > > used the masses to fight its battles against the feudal lords. Then, when > > the masses raised their heads to fight for their own liberation against > the > > bourgeoisie, they were met with the most fearful and unmitigated > violence. > > All European history is filled with such examples, from the revolutions > of > > 1789 and 1848 to the Paris Commune of 1871. > > > > Does not the bourgeoisie, once it has tamed the proletariat at home, use > > force and violence through its vast military armada to more efficiently > > exploit and suppress the many underdeveloped nations throughout the > world? > > It is so illuminating that Iraq, the nation subjected to the most > violent, > > truly genocidal military attack in recent times, has taken upon itself to > > press a formal complaint in the UN Security Council on behalf of the > > embattled masses in Los Angeles and other cities. Iraq called on that > body > > to condemn and investigate the nature of the developments here--and the > > irony is that the head of the Security Council felt obligated to accept > the > > complaint. Not even the U.S. delegate, obviously taken by surprise, > > objected. > > > > How much real difference is there between the suppression of the Paris > > Commune in 1871 and that of the revolutionary rising of the masses in Los > > Angeles in 1992? The brutal suppression differs only in magnitude and not > in > > essence. While it might seem that in Los Angeles national oppression > alone > > is involved, in reality it derives from the class exploitation of the > > African American masses dating back to the days of slavery. > > > > Watts and social legislation > > Following the Watts insurrection, the bourgeoisie made lofty promises to > > improve the situation. The Watts, Detroit, Newark and other rebellions in > > the 1960s did win significant concessions that eventually were enacted > into > > law. They became the basis for a temporary improvement in the economic > and > > social situation of the oppressed people. > > > > None of the progressive legislation, up to and including affirmative > action, > > would have been enacted had it not been for the rebellions during the > 1960s > > and the 1970s. Yet now, almost three decades after the Watts rebellion, > the > > masses are in greater poverty and the repression is heavier than before. > The > > fruits of what was won have withered on the vine as racism and the > > deterioration of economic conditions took hold once again. > > > > Once more the bourgeois politicians attempted to mollify the masses with > > endless promises of improvements never destined to see the light of day. > > This evoked a profound revulsion among the masses. It took only an > incident > > like the incredible verdict of the rigged jury that freed the four police > > officers in the Rodney King beating to ignite a storm of revolutionary > > protest. > > > > If revolutionary measures are ever to have any validity, doesn't a case > like > > this justify the people taking destiny into their own hands? > > > > Less workers, more cops > > How interesting that technology everywhere displaces labor, reducing the > > number of personnel. > > > > There was a time when it was hoped that the mere development of technical > > and industrial progress, the increase in mechanization and automation, > would > > contribute to the well-being of the masses. This has once again shown > itself > > to be a hollow mockery. The truth is that the development of higher and > more > > sophisticated technology under capitalism doesn't contribute to the > welfare > > of the masses but, on the contrary, throws them into greater misery. > > > > What has been the general trend? The growth of technology, particularly > > sophisticated high technology, has reduced the number of workers employed > in > > industry as well as in the services. The introduction of labor-saving > > devices and methods has dramatically reduced the number of workers in all > > fields. > > But the opposite trend prevails in the police forces. This is an > absolutely > > incontestable fact. > > > > At one time the police patrolled the streets on foot. Maybe they used a > > public telephone for communications with headquarters. Today they are > > equipped with sophisticated gear. They ride either on motorcycles or in > > police cars or helicopters. They communicate by radio. > > > > All this should reduce the number of police. But the trend is quite the > > contrary: to increase the forces of repression. This is not geared to > > productivity as in industry. Their growth is geared to the growth of > > national antagonisms, the growth of racism, and the bourgeoisie's general > > anti-labor offensive. > > > > In Los Angeles, the bourgeoisie is forced to bring in federal troops to > > assist city and state authorities. The social composition of the Army is > not > > just a cross-section of capitalist society. The Army and Marines, > especially > > the infantry, have a preponderance of Black and Latino soldiers. What > does > > this signify? > > > > The U.S. imperialists had to wage a technological war against Iraq out of > > fear that the preponderance of Black and Latino soldiers could end up in > a > > disastrous rebellion; they might refuse to engage in a war against their > > sisters and brothers in the interests of the class enemy. That's why the > > armed forces never really got into the ground war that seemed at first to > be > > in the offing. > > > > In Los Angeles the local police and state forces were inadequate. Only > > because the masses were unarmed was the bourgeoisie able to suppress what > > was in truth an insurrection--a revolutionary uprising. > > > > Spontaneity and consciousness > > As Marx would put it, such a rising is a festival of the masses. The > > incidental harm is far outweighed by the fact that it raises the level of > > the struggle to a higher plateau. The wounds inflicted by the gendarmerie > > will be healed. The lessons will be learned: that a spontaneous uprising > has > > to be supported with whatever means are available; that a great divide > > exists between the leaders and the masses. > > > > No viable class or nation in modern capitalist society can hope to take > > destiny in its own hands by spontaneous struggles alone. Spontaneity as > an > > element of social struggle must beget its own opposite: leadership and > > organization. Consciousness of this will inevitably grow. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
