[A pertinent contribution to the discussion at hand from the archives of downwithcapitalism...] Engels, speaking of the struggles of 1848: '[T]he military have, on their side, the disposal of artillery and fully equipped corps of skilled engineers, resources of war which, in nearly every case, the insurgents entirely lack... [S]ince then there have been very many more changes, and all in favor of the military... The arming of this enormously increased number of troops has become incomparably more effective... On the other hand, all the conditions on the insurgents' side has grown worse' (Introduction to Marx's Class Struggles in France, International n.d., pp. 22 & 23-24). Obviously, the 'arming of this enormously increased number of troops,' since guided missiles, computerized radar, not to mention nukes, etc., etc., is even MORE redoubtable. To suggest that communists, armed with only handguns, can face off against, say, star wars equipment is hopelessly naïve. Did rifles do the Black Panthers much good? That said... 'Does that mean that in the future the street fight will play no further role? Certainly not. It only means that the conditions since 1848 have become more unfavorable for civil fights, far more favorable for the military. A future street fight can therefore only be victorious when this unfavorable situation is compensated by other factors. Accordingly, it will occur more seldom in the beginning of a great revolution than in its further progress, and will have to be undertaken with GREATER FORCES' (ibid., p. 24, emphasis added). Allowing myself just a little speculation. I would surmise that the 'greater forces' to which Engels refers, above, might include SERIOUS weapons---weapons obtained secretly and illegally. All of which, of course, would MERELY SUPPLEMENT the real motive forces of revolution---namely, the inability of the (capitalist) ruling class to continue ruling coupled with MASS preparedness to replace such rule with the rule of the masses. Ryan: What kind of force do you think we have to use against the government... I don't think spears and arrows are affective anymore and rocks just don't seem to keep them down. Guns are a necessary tool for a revolution, we will only be tossed to the side if we don't come out fighting. Well, as the Engels quote suggests, today, handguns ARE spears and arrows compared to what sort of goodies the Pentagon will unleash in a (strictly) military conflict. The sort of weapons communists will need, to back up a MASS movement, are not available on the 'free' market anyway; those will have to acquired extra-legally. If one guided missile, and that's the sort of weapon I'm talking about, can take out, say, 100,000 people in the street, then defending the proliferation of handguns---popguns!---when this proliferation has primarily led to exterminating the poor (who communists wish to entreat) by, alas, other poor people (who communists wish to entreat), offers little in return for the reactionary purposes it serves. Here, it may be useful to return to Gee's earlier statement: 'Any classless democracy requires that each member be able to participate on an even keel, as novelist Orwell noted in describing the shotgun on the wall as being a sign of democracy.' That made sense, more or less, in the 18th century when muskets were the most common weapon used by organized militia AND property-owning citizen alike. There TRULY was an 'even keel'---an even TECHNOLOGICAL keel. We would not be out of line to say that each gun was a vote, therefore, each citizen had a vote; one vote per person, that seems to be what Orwell was saying: each citizen to hold an equal amount of power. To transfer that conception to today's society proves unsatisfactory, however. While each citizen may own a firearm, the ruling class own computerized missile systems. Today in America, there is no even keel; there is no parity of equal votes. This, of course, is EXACTLY the problem with libertarian apologetics for the mature regime of capitalism: those who say that 'everyone' has an equal vote (equal impact upon governance) or equal freedom of speech (equal impact upon discourse) falsely say that the general rules that governed the 18th century are applicable today. And I submit the same applies to handguns. Orwell's shotgun on the wall, as it pertains to this discussion, is an expression of INDIVIDUAL liberty, atomized liberty---anarchism in a word---whereas the communist, at least the Leninist, expression of liberty is a COLLECTIVE one. If each individual had access to nuclear warheads, would democracy be at an even keel? If we're talking about, say, guided missile systems, then the idea of transferring Orwell's symbol of individual(ist) democracy, the shotgun on the wall, to modern times in the First World becomes ludicrous. Can we imagine the guided missile system on the wall? No---because such a weapon is the result of SOCIALIZED labor and CENTRALIZED application; such a weapon can only be used by collectives (whether ruling or opposition) who submit to discipline (whether autocratic or democratic). The technology itself, Gee, that's what (objectively) pushes us all closer to socialism. Gee: It seems that technologically complex production, again, becomes the central factor. Definitely. History suggests that it has been easier for socialist revolutionaries to (at least initially) overthrow ruling classes during a particular (propitious) epoch, roughly 1900 - 1950,* when the technological level of weaponry provided a basic parity between rulers and ruled (and we should remember that the significant socialist revolutions occurred at war time when ruling classes provided weapons to those that would overthrow them). * Exceptions, such as Cuba, Vietnam and other Third World countries were characterized by a lower technological level in general (including weaponry)---in which the First World, naturally opposing these socialist struggles, were not able to militarily pursue their objectives with overwhelming, especially nuclear, weaponry due to the countervailing influence of the (equally nuclear) Soviet bloc, a stalemate which insured that these Third World struggles retained their primitive level of weaponry. We (in the First World) would now call this epoch the epoch of EARLY modern weaponry while conceding that we have entered something like a MATURE modern epoch of weaponry (which made its debut at Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The technological level of weaponry, no surprise, reflects the technological level of production in general. Thus, a problem for communists. While the earlier modern epoch provided socialists a relative fire-power parity with those they opposed (facilitating socialist revolution), the general technological level at that time proved insufficient to nourish the abundance necessary to support socialism (politically). Now that the general technological level is (presumably) much more conducive to producing the abundance necessary to support socialism (politically), the technological level of weaponry precludes any thing even resembling relative fire-power parity between rulers and ruled. Perhaps a wide-spread proliferation of computerized missile systems and nuclear weapons needs to occur before the disparity between rulers and ruled is again reduced, thus making revolution in the streets once again a possibility. The negation of the negation. As horrifying as that possibility may seem, it will be, in addition to the general trend of imperialism's modern tendency to arm neocolonies that are considered strategic satellites, capitalism's unsatiable appetite for super-profits and the unfettered 'free' market that REALIZES such a possibility. Barry Stoller http://utopia2000.org _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
