Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
The inquiry below was never responded to - to my knowledge, by the author advancing what seems to be a very individualized understanding of Marx concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolutionary process as it is unfolding in real time America. The strength of communist is in our collectivity. If we do not make allowances for each other to be wrong and adopt an approach of castigating one another, collectivity becomes harder to achieve. In my opinion a list such as this can help collectivize and harmonize who we understand the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, as well as other relevant leaders in the history of the communist movement. I do agree that it is useless and counterproductive to call each other deviants even if a comrade happen to be wrong on an issue. One must decide if the purpose of dialogue is to cure a "sickness" or kill the patient. Labeling comrades is not a theoretically convincing argument. Waistline In a message dated 12/23/2010 1:41:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _jayp...@gmail.com_ (mailto:jayp...@gmail.com) writes: Dear Mark Scott, Please let us not start distributing certificates to each other regarding our understanding of Marxism; that is just a pointless exercise. You say you have not compared Stalin with Trotsky. That is why I requested you to re-read what you had written. I merely tried to interpret what conclusions would have been drawn by any unbiased observer from that response of yours. Elsewhere, you have actually said as follows: "If he [Melvin] really did have a real indignation why has he never criticized Stalin or the Bolsheviks regarding the assassination of Trotsky? Was not Trotsky a traitor to the working-class and the dictatorship of the proletariat?" By your unthinking utterances are you not trying to implicate Stalin in the assassination of Trotsky (which is exactly what Stalin's worst enemies have been trying to do for the last several decades)? Such unwarranted insinuations are the result of your repeated attempts at giving centrality to the issue of "armed violence" without understanding the need for the communists to win hearts and minds of the working people - the working class and the peasantry - for the success of the revolution. It is the bourgeoisie and the landlords, who are primarily dependent on "armed violence" to sustain their domination. Of course, the working class will have to neutralize the existing "State power" and create its own "State power" to thwart all attempts at counter-revolution. However, for a working class party the ultimate source of power is the mass support of the working people. Without such mass support its hold over "State power" can vanish any day as happened in the Soviet Union when the latent counter-revolutionaries manged to establish control over "State power" with hardly a murmur of protest from the working class in the then Soviet Union. The concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat" should not be crudely equated with some kind of brutal military dictatorship. It is essentially a concept to explain the phase of "State power" during the long transition from the stage of socialism to the stage of communism. One cannot understand the concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat" without understanding the role of the "soviets". You have clearly evaded all my queries regarding the role of the "soviets". Am I "twisting" and "distorting" facts of history or are you closing your eyes to the facts of history? One can carry on an informed debate only if one attempts to get the basic facts right; uninformed debates just end up in throwing abuses at each other. I have no interest in mud-slinging. Jayaprakash ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
In a message dated 12/22/2010 10:43:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: You misconstrue things that people say. This is NOT what I said. Comment Sorry, it was a slip of the tongue and miss reading on my part. Sorry. WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Dear Mark Scott, Please let us not start distributing certificates to each other regarding our understanding of Marxism; that is just a pointless exercise. You say you have not compared Stalin with Trotsky. That is why I requested you to re-read what you had written. I merely tried to interpret what conclusions would have been drawn by any unbiased observer from that response of yours. Elsewhere, you have actually said as follows: "If he [Melvin] really did have a real indignation why has he never criticized Stalin or the Bolsheviks regarding the assassination of Trotsky? Was not Trotsky a traitor to the working-class and the dictatorship of the proletariat?" By your unthinking utterances are you not trying to implicate Stalin in the assassination of Trotsky (which is exactly what Stalin's worst enemies have been trying to do for the last several decades)? Such unwarranted insinuations are the result of your repeated attempts at giving centrality to the issue of "armed violence" without understanding the need for the communists to win hearts and minds of the working people - the working class and the peasantry - for the success of the revolution. It is the bourgeoisie and the landlords, who are primarily dependent on "armed violence" to sustain their domination. Of course, the working class will have to neutralize the existing "State power" and create its own "State power" to thwart all attempts at counter-revolution. However, for a working class party the ultimate source of power is the mass support of the working people. Without such mass support its hold over "State power" can vanish any day as happened in the Soviet Union when the latent counter-revolutionaries manged to establish control over "State power" with hardly a murmur of protest from the working class in the then Soviet Union. The concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat" should not be crudely equated with some kind of brutal military dictatorship. It is essentially a concept to explain the phase of "State power" during the long transition from the stage of socialism to the stage of communism. One cannot understand the concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat" without understanding the role of the "soviets". You have clearly evaded all my queries regarding the role of the "soviets". Am I "twisting" and "distorting" facts of history or are you closing your eyes to the facts of history? One can carry on an informed debate only if one attempts to get the basic facts right; uninformed debates just end up in throwing abuses at each other. I have no interest in mud-slinging. Jayaprakash == On 23 December 2010 03:18, Mark Scott wrote: > Mr Jayaprakash, > > You amaze me. No where have I compared Stalin to Trotsky. You are very > adept at turning things upside down and on its head! > > What do you think the dictatorship of the proletariat is? Who do you think > wrote about the dictatorship of the proletariat? Do you think this is my > creative thinking? It appears you know little of Marxism and it is > completely pointless to engage with someone who twists and distorts things > as you and Melvin do. > > Good Luck > > 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Comrade f580, You are most correct here on several points. One, it is a complete waste of time and energy to argue with Melvin because, secondly, he completely distorts what is said with the intent to misconstrue things. Firstly, I said it was the extermination of a class which is absolutely true. The dictatorship of the proletariat completely subdues the former ruling-class and as a class they are exterminated as they are eradicated and abolished as a class. When this class is completely abolished there is no more class struggle, hence, the ability of the socialist State to wither away and communism is fully realized. I never said anything about the "extermination of individuals of a class" as Melvin claims. The more he tries to refute the essence of the class struggle the more he embelishes what has been said. This is no accident as it is a most definite pattern in his strategy of discourse. Secondly, my point about slavery not being THE issue is still valid and I refuse to recant it. My comment was made in reference to Lincoln's position on slavery vs the preservation of the Union. Slavery was not THE issue, in other words, it was not the only issue and this is evidenced in that it took almost 2 years for Lincoln to move the question of slavery to the forefront. Until that time he cared less about whether slavery was eradicated or not and that is historically documented and undeniable. Lincoln's position prior to making slavery the forefront issue was racist and supported by historical documentation which also is evidenced through historical documentation that he favored "colonization" of the slaves in another country altogether because he refused to accept the equality of blacks with whites. There is no denying this and there were many other issues or contradictions that were at play as well that he and every other revisionist historian refuses to address or downplays. It is because of the historical records and documentation that anyone can access that fully proves slavery, in Lincoln's mind and that of most of the Northerners who enacted Black Codes, did not make slavery THE SINGULAR ISSUE. Even when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation historical records show that he did so as a "war measure" and not because of an overwhelming moral conviction. I recant nothing in either of the 2 subject matters. Melvin is a self-righteous egotist that will see only what he wants to see, therefore, he intentionally distorts and twists everything and takes them out of context in order for him to puff up his chest in a false sense of obtaining some kind of moral high ground. Yes, it is a waste of time arguing with someone of this character because they never will portray the truth but only contort to serve their own opportunistic agenda. This has been his method ever since joining this list and I therefore have no use for this opportunist. Fraternally Mark Scott --- On Thu, 12/23/10, frankenstein580 wrote: From: frankenstein580 Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: "For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism" Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010, 3:43 AM WL: "You state it is I and the intelligence agencies of the bourgeoisie, specifically the secret police, that is responsible for what Mr. Mark Scott wrote, because what he wrote was as slip of the tongue, which he REFUSE TO SAY WAS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE." COMMENT: You misconstrue things that people say. This is NOT what I said. Sometimes it is a waist of time discussing with you. Let others be the judges, since I don't have time to play around with you. You are a worker. I am a worker. YOur politics is anti working class, for no other class has proven to be able to defeat capitalism like our class has, outside of the wars for national liberation. The working class is not engaged in a symbiotic type relationship with the bourgeoisie rendering it conservative or reactionary, like you and others peddle. So, thank YOU for your support. f580 --- On Wed, 12/22/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 5:43 PM In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:53:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: There was class war during the Bolshevik uprising, and there was class war during war communism. It is the Imperialists and not members of this list who practice terrorism. It is YOU and not the bourgeois secret police who insists on sustaining what could have been a slip of the tongue or a mere haphazard comment. Marxist would have understood what he meant... or at least, what we, as Marxist, understand by the role of force or violence in history. Comment Yes
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
WL: "You state it is I and the intelligence agencies of the bourgeoisie, specifically the secret police, that is responsible for what Mr. Mark Scott wrote, because what he wrote was as slip of the tongue, which he REFUSE TO SAY WAS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE." COMMENT: You misconstrue things that people say. This is NOT what I said. Sometimes it is a waist of time discussing with you. Let others be the judges, since I don't have time to play around with you. You are a worker. I am a worker. YOur politics is anti working class, for no other class has proven to be able to defeat capitalism like our class has, outside of the wars for national liberation. The working class is not engaged in a symbiotic type relationship with the bourgeoisie rendering it conservative or reactionary, like you and others peddle. So, thank YOU for your support. f580 --- On Wed, 12/22/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 5:43 PM In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:53:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: There was class war during the Bolshevik uprising, and there was class war during war communism. It is the Imperialists and not members of this list who practice terrorism. It is YOU and not the bourgeois secret police who insists on sustaining what could have been a slip of the tongue or a mere haphazard comment. Marxist would have understood what he meant... or at least, what we, as Marxist, understand by the role of force or violence in history. Comment Yes there was class war as political insurrection during the period of the Bolshevik taking of state power. Class war is broader than insurrection and the taking of power. Yes, there was Civil war and war against imperial invasion during the period of war communism. You state it is I and the intelligence agencies of the bourgeoisie, specifically the secret police, that is responsible for what Mr. Mark Scott wrote, because what he wrote was as slip of the tongue, which he REFUSE TO SAY WAS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE. Remember this is the same guy - Scott, who says that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War and was an afterthought, which is the issue that raised this entire discussion. Remember, I called Mr. Scott a redeemer historian - which he is, because he said SLAVERY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CIVIL WAR and was an after thought. Scott then went berserk, - his standard response to anyone that holds a different opinion, and started quoting material from 2005, which is when HE - not I, raised the issue of exterminating individuals constituting a class. Then I responded to this old controversy from 2005, which Scott raised, and yet YOU claim it is I and the secret police that is raising the controversy? Thanks for your support WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:53:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: There was class war during the Bolshevik uprising, and there was class war during war communism. It is the Imperialists and not members of this list who practice terrorism. It is YOU and not the bourgeois secret police who insists on sustaining what could have been a slip of the tongue or a mere haphazard comment. Marxist would have understood what he meant... or at least, what we, as Marxist, understand by the role of force or violence in history. Comment Yes there was class war as political insurrection during the period of the Bolshevik taking of state power. Class war is broader than insurrection and the taking of power. Yes, there was Civil war and war against imperial invasion during the period of war communism. You state it is I and the intelligence agencies of the bourgeoisie, specifically the secret police, that is responsible for what Mr. Mark Scott wrote, because what he wrote was as slip of the tongue, which he REFUSE TO SAY WAS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE. Remember this is the same guy - Scott, who says that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War and was an afterthought, which is the issue that raised this entire discussion. Remember, I called Mr. Scott a redeemer historian - which he is, because he said SLAVERY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CIVIL WAR and was an after thought. Scott then went berserk, - his standard response to anyone that holds a different opinion, and started quoting material from 2005, which is when HE - not I, raised the issue of exterminating individuals constituting a class. Then I responded to this old controversy from 2005, which Scott raised, and yet YOU claim it is I and the secret police that is raising the controversy? Thanks for your support WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Comrade f580, Thank you for your support. I will say that Melvin will only continue to try and paint me as a "terrorist" as he has for the last 5 years. Melvin is not interested in even trying to understand anything but his own sophistry and pedantics in trying to revise Marxism. It is clear that Melvin has a predisposition for the bourgeoisie and would rather defend the bourgeoisie than defend the reality of class struggle. Such being the case he will only continue his holy crusade against me so let him go. It really is pointless to engage with those who want to twist and distort everything whether it is from a revisionist point of view or of personal animosity which I believe in Melvins case is both. Fraternally Mark Scott --- On Wed, 12/22/10, frankenstein580 wrote: From: frankenstein580 Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: "For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism" Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 11:29 PM I see quite clearly that you keep raising an issue that should be squashed already. Mark Scott has been making himself quite clear already about what he really meant by his statement. If you can't pick up the message, then you've got a problem in communication. I believe that you should leave this subject alone and stay on your Lincoln advocacy theme where you were making some sense. Mark Scott has demonstrated to me to be a defender of Marxism Leninism and of the working class, and therefore I support him. f580 --- On Wed, 12/22/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 3:18 PM In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:13:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: I'm telling your clearly, Mr., that YOU keep bringing up the issue of "extermination". And that YOU are causing trouble here on this LIST. Reply This is simply not true. I did not raise the issue. I have never raised the issue of extermination of a class which is a political doctrine of terrorism. I responded to a doctrine of political terrorism. Do you really believe that it was I that raised this issue? WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
I read his material. And I see the difference between the original quote and his later posts. Find the quote yourself. It's not my issue any more, it is yours and this LIST'S. There was class war during the Bolshevik uprising, and there was class war during war communism. It is the Imperialists and not members of this list who practice terrorism. It is YOU and not the bourgeois secret police who insists on sustaining what could have been a slip of the tongue or a mere haphazard comment. Marxist would have understood what he meant... or at least, what we, as Marxist, understand by the role of force or violence in history. Mark Scott is an intelligent comrade, well learned in the theory of Marxism, and advocate of the working class, which is more than I can say for some others. That, to me, has value. f580 --- On Wed, 12/22/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 3:35 PM In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:29:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: I see quite clearly that you keep raising an issue that should be squashed already. Mark Scott has been making himself quite clear already about what he really meant by his statement. If you can't pick up the message, then you've got a problem in communication. I believe that you should leave this subject alone and stay on your Lincoln advocacy theme where you were making some sense. Mark Scott has demonstrated to me to be a defender of Marxism Leninism and of the working class, and therefore I support him. f580 Reply I HAVE NOT RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE EXTERMINATION OF INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING A CLASS. Mr. Scott speaks for himself. He states he actually means the extermination of individuals as a class. If you feel he means something else then simply quote what he says. Simply quote his correction or meaning and lets leave the subject. Quote the material please. WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:29:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: I see quite clearly that you keep raising an issue that should be squashed already. Mark Scott has been making himself quite clear already about what he really meant by his statement. If you can't pick up the message, then you've got a problem in communication. I believe that you should leave this subject alone and stay on your Lincoln advocacy theme where you were making some sense. Mark Scott has demonstrated to me to be a defender of Marxism Leninism and of the working class, and therefore I support him. f580 Reply I HAVE NOT RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE EXTERMINATION OF INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING A CLASS. Mr. Scott speaks for himself. He states he actually means the extermination of individuals as a class. If you feel he means something else then simply quote what he says. Simply quote his correction or meaning and lets leave the subject. Quote the material please. WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
I see quite clearly that you keep raising an issue that should be squashed already. Mark Scott has been making himself quite clear already about what he really meant by his statement. If you can't pick up the message, then you've got a problem in communication. I believe that you should leave this subject alone and stay on your Lincoln advocacy theme where you were making some sense. Mark Scott has demonstrated to me to be a defender of Marxism Leninism and of the working class, and therefore I support him. f580 --- On Wed, 12/22/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 3:18 PM In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:13:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: I'm telling your clearly, Mr., that YOU keep bringing up the issue of "extermination". And that YOU are causing trouble here on this LIST. Reply This is simply not true. I did not raise the issue. I have never raised the issue of extermination of a class which is a political doctrine of terrorism. I responded to a doctrine of political terrorism. Do you really believe that it was I that raised this issue? WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:13:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: I'm telling your clearly, Mr., that YOU keep bringing up the issue of "extermination". And that YOU are causing trouble here on this LIST. Reply This is simply not true. I did not raise the issue. I have never raised the issue of extermination of a class which is a political doctrine of terrorism. I responded to a doctrine of political terrorism. Do you really believe that it was I that raised this issue? WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
I'm telling your clearly, Mr., that YOU keep bringing up the issue of "extermination". And that YOU are causing trouble here on this LIST. --- On Wed, 12/22/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 3:09 PM In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:05:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: The only one who continues blabbing about extermination is you. You are causing trouble. Comment You are factually mistaken. I DID NOT RAISE THE QUESTION. Do you suggest I raised the question of the extermination of individuals as a class? Wl. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
In a message dated 12/22/2010 6:05:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, frankied...@yahoo.com writes: The only one who continues blabbing about extermination is you. You are causing trouble. Comment You are factually mistaken. I DID NOT RAISE THE QUESTION. Do you suggest I raised the question of the extermination of individuals as a class? Wl. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
The only one who continues blabbing about extermination is you. You are causing trouble. --- On Wed, 12/22/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 9:20 AM In a message dated 12/21/2010 7:31:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _frankied...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:frankied...@yahoo.com) writes: 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. Comment I am not sure what any of the above has to do with a doctrine of political terrorism that advocates the VIOLENT EXTERMINATION of individuals constituting a class. Where I live at people have always shot back. It is the material and political organization of resistance that communists excel in. In fact the question of armed self defense and/as the mass uprising played itself in Detroit on a scale not witnessed since the Civil War in America. The proletariat in Detroit is locked into a death fight with capital. To this day Detroit remains the most violent big city in America. The question of armed struggle and insurgency has nothing to do with doctrine of political terrorism. Armed resistance to bourgeois rule is part of our real living history. This history is totally absent from the narrative of the promoter of political terrorism, and advocacy of violent extermination of individuals constituting a class. What of real American history? The last great juncture is punctuated as book mark in Birmingham 1963, Watts 1965, Newark/Detroit 1967, Cleveland 1967/68 and then works itself South culminating in Tampa Fl. 1989. Only on rare occasion have the metropolitan police force been defeated decisively. Notably Detroit and Cleveland. All of this has been discussed before on this list. WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Mr Jayaprakash, You amaze me. No where have I compared Stalin to Trotsky. You are very adept at turning things upside down and on its head! What do you think the dictatorship of the proletariat is? Who do you think wrote about the dictatorship of the proletariat? Do you think this is my creative thinking? It appears you know little of Marxism and it is completely pointless to engage with someone who twists and distorts things as you and Melvin do. Good Luck 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Dear Mark Scott, Emotional outbursts cannot substitute for logical analyses.Please re-read what you have just written. From your response it would appear that you are among one of the worst critics of Stalin! On the one hand, you seem to be hell bent on projecting Stalin as a blood-thirsty dictator by repeatedly placing emphasis on the word "dictatorship" and the phrase "armed struggle". On the other, you are projecting Trotsky as a votary of "Marxist humanism". Even the most ardent supporter of Trotsky would not have dreamed of making such a comparison between Stalin and Trotsky! Why are you trying to tarnish the image of Stalin in exactly the same manner in which anti-communists would like it to be projected? Don't you realize that your utterances are actually adding fuel to the anti-communist propaganda? One may reinterpret the facts of history as one would like. However, that would not make any material differences to the actual facts on the ground. Let us therefore try to unravel the facts of history around the period of the October Revolution. Then we can verify if it was the counter-revolutionary Kerensky and the Czarist generals or whether it was the Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, who were the votaries of violence. Jayaprakash == On 22 December 2010 23:10, Mark Scott wrote: > > > > If you think the October Revolution was not violent then I suggest it is > you that does not draw the right lessons from history and should > reinvestigate matters. The October Revolution encompassed a variety of > strategies but it was also extremely violent. > > My so-called flippant attitude towards Marxist humanism is based on the > basis or foundation of this theory which is that of trotskyism. This theory > as espoused by Leszek Kolakowski and Raya Dunayevskaya who was a secretary > to Trotsky have made every attempt to vilify Stalin and the Soviet Union as > a dictatorship of the proletariat. > > > > ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
If you think the October Revolution was not violent then I suggest it is you that does not draw the right lessons from history and should reinvestigate matters. The October Revolution encompassed a variety of strategies but it was also extremely violent. My so-called flippant attitude towards Marxist humanism is based on the basis or foundation of this theory which is that of trotskyism. This theory as espoused by Leszek Kolakowski and Raya Dunayevskaya who was a secretary to Trotsky have made every attempt to vilify Stalin and the Soviet Union as a dictatorship of the proletariat. Here is what Kolakowski, the Marxist humanist, has to say about Marxism: "As far as the history of Marxism is concerned, there are additional and more pertinent reasons that make it worthy of Study. Philosophical doctrines that for a long time enjoyed considerable popularity (and what was called Marxist philosophical economics was not really economics in today's meaning of the word but a philosophical dream) never die out entirely. They change their vocabulary but they survive in the underground of culture; and though they are often poorly visible, they are still able to attract people or to terrify them. Marxism belongs to the intellectual tradition and the political history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; as such it is obviously interesting, together with its endlessly repeated, often grotesque, pretensions to being a scientific theory. However, this philosophy entailed some practical consequences which would bring indescribable misery and suffering to mankind: private property and the market were to be abolished and replaced by universal and all-embracing - an utterly impossible project. It was noticed towards the end of the nineteenth century, mainly by anarchists, that so conceived, the Marxist doctrine was a good blueprint for converting human society into a giant concentration camp; to be sure, this was not Marx's intention, but it was an inevitable effect of the glorious and final benevolent utopia he devised. "Theoretical dogmatic Marxism drags on its poor existence in the corridors of some academic institutions; while its carrying capacity is very poor, it is not unimaginable that it will gain in strength, supported by certain intellectually miserable but loud movements which have in fact lost contact with Marxism as a theoretical body, but look for issues that can, however vaguely, be presented as issues of capitalism or anticapitalism (these concepts are never defined, but they are employed in such a way that they seem to derive from Marxist tradition). "The communist ideology seems to be in a state of rigor mortis, and the regimes that still use it are so repulsive that its ressurrection may seem to be impossible. But let us not rush into such a prophecy (or anti-prophecy). The social conditions that nourished and made use of this ideology can still revive; perhaps - who knows? - the virus is dormant, waiting for the next opportunity. Dreams about the perfect society belong to the enduring stock of our civilization." Underlying Kolakowski's Marxist Humanism is the blatant support of capitalism wherein he discusses China producing a near truth but also distortions in his conclusion: "Let us not forget, however, that the most populous country on earth, China, now experiencing a flamboyant, dazzling expansion of the market (accompanied both by gigantic corruption and by an extremely rate of growth), is in some important respects continuing its insane Marxist past - a past which, unlike the post-Stalinist Soviet Union, it never repudiated." Here we have finally Kolakowski's repudiation of Stalin! This trotskyist criticizes China for having a Marxist history under Mao but further criticizes it for not repudiating its past. But he is not yet finished: "This is not a Communist state in any recognisable sense but a tyranny that grew out of a Communist system. Numerous academics and intellectuals extolled its glory when it was at it most savage, destructive, and foolish." So, according to this trotskyist, China, when it was a socialist state under Mao was nothing but a "savage, destructive, and foolish" system from which tyranny evolved. Never does he mention that the class struggle and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat was overthrown in large part by non-violent means by capitalist counterrevolutionaries who did employ violence! Then this trotskyist returns his attention to the Soviet Union beginning with the dictatorship of the proletariat under Stalin: "Will Russian imperialism return, after the demise of the Soviet regime? It is not inconceivable - we can observe a certain amount of nostalgia for the lost empire - but if it does, Marxism will have nothing to contribute to this rebirth. "Whatever the proper definition of capitalism, the market, combined with the rule of la
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
In a message dated 12/21/2010 7:31:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _frankied...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:frankied...@yahoo.com) writes: 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. Comment I am not sure what any of the above has to do with a doctrine of political terrorism that advocates the VIOLENT EXTERMINATION of individuals constituting a class. Where I live at people have always shot back. It is the material and political organization of resistance that communists excel in. In fact the question of armed self defense and/as the mass uprising played itself in Detroit on a scale not witnessed since the Civil War in America. The proletariat in Detroit is locked into a death fight with capital. To this day Detroit remains the most violent big city in America. The question of armed struggle and insurgency has nothing to do with doctrine of political terrorism. Armed resistance to bourgeois rule is part of our real living history. This history is totally absent from the narrative of the promoter of political terrorism, and advocacy of violent extermination of individuals constituting a class. What of real American history? The last great juncture is punctuated as book mark in Birmingham 1963, Watts 1965, Newark/Detroit 1967, Cleveland 1967/68 and then works itself South culminating in Tampa Fl. 1989. Only on rare occasion have the metropolitan police force been defeated decisively. Notably Detroit and Cleveland. All of this has been discussed before on this list. WL. ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
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 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Comrade f580, Thank you for your words although I don't consider myself an eloquent or even a good writer to be honest with you. I do not intend to argue with you as I appreciate not just your support but your enthusiasm as a Marxist revolutionary dedicated to the preservation and reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism which this list was almost 10 years ago anyway. Now it seems acceptable to espouse a highly revisionist line. I will only comment on semantics which I used that seems to be upsetting to some, however, make no apologies for its usage because I am not squeamish to the point of being concerned with others feelings that really have no idea what they are talking about, in particular...Melvin. What does Websters say about extermination? Simply to get rid of completely usu. by killing off SYN extirpate, eradicate, abolish, annihilate. What does Websters say of elimination? Simply to remove, eradicate Now...what does Websters say of eradicate? Simply to uproot, eliminate SYN is exterminate, annihilate, abolish, extinguish You are an intelligent Comrade so I'm sure you see the similarities here. The words are basically one and the same. I agree with your comment somewhat: "...and we just don't use the word "exterminate" a people, at least not with the connotations implied." The proletarian morals you refer to does make a difference in terms of comparison with the bourgeois enemies morals because they have none. There is absolutely no honor or loyalty except to capital from the bourgeoisie's "morals" go, therefore, they think nothing of the mass slaughter of people. We see this truism against the Native Americans, we see this truism against the people of the Balkans, and we are in the very process of seeing this truism being applied right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems to be an acceptable tactic by Marxist humanists for the capitalists to exterminate people but when a Marxist-Leninist, in this case, myself, calls for the extermination of the US bourgeoisie as a class it upsets these bourgeoisified wanna be Marxists. Simply put, the bourgeois class will be exterminated as a class. What I find so laughable about Melvins fake indignition is that Marxian dialectics tell us that in essence the capitalists are exterminating themselves, hence, Marx's observation that capitalism creates its own "grave-diggers". At times we must ask ourselves to what extent am I still conditioned by bourgeois ideology. I continuously look and evaluate myself as to what bourgeois thoughts and mannerisms remain in my character. Che addresses this eloquently in his concept of the "new man" in which I agree that in order for the "new man" to develop within each and everyone of us who call ourselves Marxists we must conduct this evaluation and self-criticism because the developmental process of the "new man" is a continual process and will remain so until humanity has reached the point wherein all class society has itself been exterminated and full communism can be realized. As Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries we do not exterminate, eradicate, eliminate, or annihilate a class of people in the bourgeois moral sense. We must also realize what a "just" war is and when that is realized we can say as Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries that we do not exterminate a class of people for repugnant self-serving goals but exterminate the ruling-class because of the very fact that they exterminate the working-class for these self-serving goals and interests. In other words, we are only the mechanism by which the US bourgeoisie will exterminate themselves as a class of exploiters. Such use of the term exterminate by me is justified in that the working-class has the historical role to overthrow the exploiting ruling-class and establish a society that is completely free of exploitation of man by man whereas the ruling-class will go to great lengths to preserve this vile social order by resorting to the extermination of those who would challenge their power. The US bourgeoisie does not care who they exterminate to achieve new markets and resources or to protect their private property system, however, they do realize they cannot exterminate the entire working-class or they will not have their labor pool to provide them with their profits. Therefore, they are free to exterminate and mass slaughter millions of proletarians the world over because there is no shortage of workers. The working-class is justified in exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class because as Marxist-Leninists we do not need to exploit anyone to achieve a life of economic as well as political freedom and liberty. It is the bourgeois class alone that thrives on exploitation and will amke all attempts to restore their vile system of exploitation so they will want and have the motive to undertake reactionary counterrevolutionary violence against the working-class and the dictatorshi
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
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 ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
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 wrote: From: Mark Scott 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Comrade Slavyanski, Thank you for your defense of Marxism-Leninism wherein you replied to Melvin's intentional distortion of Marxism in his slanderous attempt to assassinate my character which is nothing new if one views the archives. This repugnant attack took the form of classical demonization of one's enemy wherein he was equating me as a fascist and you responded: "Not really, since the German genocide targeted people based on their ethnicity, period." Melvin can slanderous attack me if he likes and it will make no difference to me but I highly detest his distortion of Marxism in any context so I again thank you for your defense of Marxism-Leninism. The struggle against revisionism is timeless and transcends the realm of personalities and individual character but an opportunist will employ every repugnant tactic available to him. Nevertheless, the defense of Marxism-Leninism is all important and supposedly at one time that is what this list was all about...not so sure anymore. 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Melvin states: "One can only kill individuals constituting a class and their place is immediately taken by new people until changes in the productive forces are sufficient to render the class obsolete in the first place. Old classes are overthrown and liquidated from history as society leaps to a new mode of production." Close but no cigar as they say. It is true that one fills the gap left by another, even Che stated that about revolutionaries. I am sure the majority of readers will realize that this is a "quote" but not taken out of context based on the principles and implications raised by Che, and, more importantly because of the dialectical nature of class struggle. Che stated: "What difference the dangers to a man or a people, or the sacrifices they make, when what is at stake is the destiny of humanity. "Our every action is a call for war against imperialism and a cry for the unity of the peoples against the great enemy of the human species: the Unites States of North America. "Wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear, and another hand reaches out to take up our arms, and other men come forward to join in our funeral dirge with the chattering of machine guns and new calls for battle and victory." Che wrote this message sometime between 1965 and 1967 prior to his execution which I have never heard the opportunists like Melvin object to. His location at the time was unknown but the entire message, Vietnam and the World Struggle for Freedom, was made public in Havana on April 16, 1967 by Prensa Latina and addressed to the Organization of Solidarity of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. What Melvin states above is a mere abstraction due to his mechanistic approach to dialectics. He states: "Old classes are overthrown and liquidated from history as society leaps to a new mode of production." This is partially true but he completely ignores the entire process of development of the class struggle for his own personal reasons of convenience. Old classes are overthrown and liquidated based on the leap or advancement of new modes of production but this is incomplete because it leaves out the entire concept of class struggle. New modes of production render the old modes obsolete but these constantly developing new modes of production is what further polarizes the two main classes in society - bourgeois and proletarian. As this polarization geats greater so does the struggle between these 2 classes and once the working-class realizes, as a result of its class consciousness and not public opinion, the working-class begins its historical role as "grave-diggers" of capitalism in the overthrow of this mode of production and the entire class relations to it. The very dialectics of this clearly indicates that the capitalists will resist the overthrow of their decadent social system thus a violent armed struggle is engaged. Melvins approach is completely a mechanistic materialist position that is anti-Marxian thus opportunistic because he wants society to develop into socialism through a process whereby capitalism peacefully morphs into his concept of "economic communism" and the capitalist embraces the socialist and says "I'm sorry"! Then it becomes a fairy-tale ending where everybody lives happily ever after as wealth and resources are abundantly spread to all! What a pile of horseshit. Scientific Marxism makes it more than perfectly clear that the new mode of production - socialism - not just renders the capitalist mode obsolete but makes it clear that it is through a violent armed struggle that the capitalist class is eliminated, defeated, exterminated, liquidated and so on and so forth. Melvin is either completely ignorant of class struggle or is revisionist in his perception of it and I firmly believe that he is not ignorant of it. Dialectics addresses the unity of opposites so perhaps Melvin would do well to restudy Marxist dialectics and get at least the slightest notion of this science if he is ignorant of it but that, as I said, is doubtfully the case. In any respect, the new mode of production is only an abstract part of the process of development within the class struggle...the rest of the process is the "struggle" which is why it is called the "class struggle" because it is a violent struggle between two classes, one to try and hold on to their power while the other attempts to overthrow the others power in order to establish their own structure of power. Such a struggle between two classes is not flowery but brutal and the working-class will overthrow the bourgeoisie in this violent power struggle. For Melvin to say otherwise as he has clearly shows his revisionist position and is no Marxist whatsoever. Fraternally Mark Scott ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Mar
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
In the history of the international communist movement there exist NO literature advocating the violent extermination of a class. There is NOTHING in Marx, Engel's, Lenin, Stalin or Mao where as individuals or representatives of a party and class, these leader advocate or call for the extermination of a class. NOTHING! Class struggle in its military aspect is never a question of extermination of a class. Class struggle in its far reaching political-economic aspects call into question the liquidation - dissolution, of the old dying class and classes, BUT NOT AS A MILITARY MATTER in its practical and historical features. A class is liquidated on the basis of its pending dissolution of its economic underpinning or revolution in the means of production and transition in the property form. The proletariat liquidates itself as a class. Who in their right mind would call this historic act of liquidation - extermination of a class? Advocacy for extermination of a class is a call for genocide pure and simple. Which of course is why no one in their right mind will endorse such a formulation. Advocacy of extermination of people - a concrete historical class, is a call for genocide and mass murder. One cannot exterminate a class. One can only kill individuals constituting a class and their place is immediately taken by new people until changes in the productive forces are sufficient to render the class obsolete in the first place. Old classes are overthrown and liquidated from history as society leaps to a new mode of production. WL. In a message dated 12/20/2010 4:11:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _frankied...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:frankied...@yahoo.com) writes: I think that we're going overboard here with this statement produced renew by Waistline; we can see that Waistline has already disassociated himself from the "extermination" word; so you're SAFE, don't worry. NO one here is advocating Terrorism or the like, as I see it. Also, No need to summons the attention of the oppressive police State by pretending to be so sanctimoniously vigilant on this matter. There is class war all over this world and we are quite conscious of how murderous the Imperialists are. for free from _http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) ___ 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
ven after victory, the warning to "hold on to your > guns" remains imperative. 14 countries invaded the Soviet Union immediately > after the revolution. Does our Marxist humanist really think that the US > bourgeoisie would not walk into Havana tomorrow if the Cubans did not > possess weapons? > > > As communists, then, we defend absolutely the right of the oppressed people > of the world to take up arms against imperialism -- and not put them down > until victory. Those who abandon this position, should indeed be "ruthlessly > dismissed from the ranks of the supporters of the revolution". For as Lenin > said of the renegade Kautsky: > > "(he) has to resort to all these subterfuges, sophistries and > falsiflcations only to excuse himself from violent revolution, and to > conceal his renunciation of it, his desertion to the side of the liberal > labour policy, the side of the bourgeoisie. That is the crux of the matter". > > And so it is with the Marxist humanist deviant, Melvin, he will go to great > lengths to revise Marxism to suit his opportunism of privilege in bourgeois > society by resorting to character assassination, falsifications, > sophistries, and subterfuges through his pedantics. > > For Lenin, as well as every other Marxist of the Bolshevik ranks, it is > clear what must be done with bourgeois apologists and Marxist humanists who > what to denounce not me, for I could care less about this piss ant deviant, > but do denounce Class War and Class Struggle there is only one course of > action to be taken against such revisionts: > > "It is not enough to take sides on the question of political slogans; it is > also necessary to take sides on the question of an armed uprising. Those who > are opposed to it, those who do not prepare for it, must be ruthlessly > dismissed from the ranks of the supporters of the revolution, sent packing > to its enemies, to the traitors or cowards; for the day is approaching when > the force of events and the conditions of the struggle will compel us to > distinguish between enemies and friends according to this principle". > (V.I. Lenin, 'Lessons of the Moscow Uprising', Collected Works, Vol. 11) > > Melvin can denounce me all he wants, I am only one of thousands of > messengers who agitate for the dictatorship of the proletariat. To denounce > Class War - the class struggle - is the highest form of opportunism and > revisionism, therefore, I not only denounce this revisionist but call for > his expulsion. This list is for the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism and > not for its denouncement and negation as this revisionist Melvin continually > attempts. > > Fraternally > > Mark Scott > > --- On Mon, 12/20/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: > > > From: waistli...@aol.com > Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . > To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu > Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 8:27 PM > > > I do not understand the questions below in the context of the statement > produced. Please explain or reformulate. Advocacy of extermination of > individuals as they constitute class; and a call for "violent > extermination" of > these individuals is akin to the reality of German fascism and Indian > genocide. > > Waistline. > > > > > In a message dated 12/20/2010 3:13:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > kale_moshaa...@yahoo.com writes: > > Doesn't Marx say that the only War is Class War? > > How do you expect to win a war for the Worker? > > > * > > > > From: _waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) > <_waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) > Subject: [MLL] I > denounce the statement > below advocating . . . . . To: _marxist-leninist-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu_ > (mailto:marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu) Date: Monday, > December 20, > 2010, 3:10 PM > > > I denounce the statement below advocating the violent extermination of > people/classes, and consider such advocacy political terrorism, > unacceptable to > a discussion list such as this. > > I have no connection with or anything to do with individuals advocating > extermination - in this case violent extermination, of individuals as > these > individuals constitute themselves into classes. > > I further admit to having no political or personal connection, personal > private conversations, and/or personal private contact, with the author > below. > Nor have I every engaged in any discussion of extermination of > people/classes with anyone. > > > Waistline > > > > In a message dated 12/18/2010 8:10:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > __mark1sco
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Not really, since the German genocide targeted people based on their ethnicity, period. JS “The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the sacred edict of the party on the defense of women's rights.” - Enver Hoxha, 1967 --- On Mon, 12/20/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 1:27 PM I do not understand the questions below in the context of the statement produced. Please explain or reformulate. Advocacy of extermination of individuals as they constitute class; and a call for "violent extermination" of these individuals is akin to the reality of German fascism and Indian genocide. Waistline. In a message dated 12/20/2010 3:13:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kale_moshaa...@yahoo.com writes: Doesn't Marx say that the only War is Class War? How do you expect to win a war for the Worker? * From: _waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) <_waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) > Subject: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: _marxist-leninist-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu_ (mailto:marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu) Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 3:10 PM I denounce the statement below advocating the violent extermination of people/classes, and consider such advocacy political terrorism, unacceptable to a discussion list such as this. I have no connection with or anything to do with individuals advocating extermination - in this case violent extermination, of individuals as these individuals constitute themselves into classes. I further admit to having no political or personal connection, personal private conversations, and/or personal private contact, with the author below. Nor have I every engaged in any discussion of extermination of people/classes with anyone. Waistline In a message dated 12/18/2010 8:10:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, __mark1scot...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:_mark1scot...@yahoo.com) writes: You are such a fraud it is unbelievable. From the moment you started referring to me slanderously years ago, especially in regards to my past military service, is when the so-called name calling began initiated by you. It was you who began the slander and referring to you as a deiviant, apologist and such is in line with describing a revisionist. Look at all the writings of Lenin and others in their references to deviants. I make no hidden insinuations here...I have absolutely no respect for you so let's get it clear now because I will not lower myself to your gutter standards again. Let's look at the archives "dude", here is what created my animosity towards you according to what you wrote "dude": "I mention this Mark because you fucked with the wrong nigga." "You are a fool and thug." These are only 2 of the many name calling references you started with me yet want to self-righteously claim you don't resort to name calling. These two quotes of name calling was made by you because I said I believed in the violent extermination of the US bourgeoisie which was written on Friday, Dec 30, 2005. The article was entitled by you RE: Yu Chi Chan - Black Panthers 2, Mark as murderer and Terrorist. You so hypocritically love to turn everything on its head and pretend you are so principled but you are nothing but a bourgeois loving revisionist pretending at Marxism. It was you who called me a murderer and terrorist - not the other way around "dude". You will go to any length to slander someone and then pretend to be so self-righteous. Why don't you go whine and snivel to the moderators like usual! There is no polite way of saying how much I detest you as a fraud so I will leave it at this LRNA clearly states that fascism is alive and well in the US and I will be glad to post their articles if needed. 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
e - is the highest form of opportunism and revisionism, therefore, I not only denounce this revisionist but call for his expulsion. This list is for the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism and not for its denouncement and negation as this revisionist Melvin continually attempts. Fraternally Mark Scott --- On Mon, 12/20/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 8:27 PM I do not understand the questions below in the context of the statement produced. Please explain or reformulate. Advocacy of extermination of individuals as they constitute class; and a call for "violent extermination" of these individuals is akin to the reality of German fascism and Indian genocide. Waistline. In a message dated 12/20/2010 3:13:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kale_moshaa...@yahoo.com writes: Doesn't Marx say that the only War is Class War? How do you expect to win a war for the Worker? * From: _waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) <_waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) > Subject: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: _marxist-leninist-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu_ (mailto:marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu) Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 3:10 PM I denounce the statement below advocating the violent extermination of people/classes, and consider such advocacy political terrorism, unacceptable to a discussion list such as this. I have no connection with or anything to do with individuals advocating extermination - in this case violent extermination, of individuals as these individuals constitute themselves into classes. I further admit to having no political or personal connection, personal private conversations, and/or personal private contact, with the author below. Nor have I every engaged in any discussion of extermination of people/classes with anyone. Waistline In a message dated 12/18/2010 8:10:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, __mark1scot...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:_mark1scot...@yahoo.com) writes: You are such a fraud it is unbelievable. From the moment you started referring to me slanderously years ago, especially in regards to my past military service, is when the so-called name calling began initiated by you. It was you who began the slander and referring to you as a deiviant, apologist and such is in line with describing a revisionist. Look at all the writings of Lenin and others in their references to deviants. I make no hidden insinuations here...I have absolutely no respect for you so let's get it clear now because I will not lower myself to your gutter standards again. Let's look at the archives "dude", here is what created my animosity towards you according to what you wrote "dude": "I mention this Mark because you fucked with the wrong nigga." "You are a fool and thug." These are only 2 of the many name calling references you started with me yet want to self-righteously claim you don't resort to name calling. These two quotes of name calling was made by you because I said I believed in the violent extermination of the US bourgeoisie which was written on Friday, Dec 30, 2005. The article was entitled by you RE: Yu Chi Chan - Black Panthers 2, Mark as murderer and Terrorist. You so hypocritically love to turn everything on its head and pretend you are so principled but you are nothing but a bourgeois loving revisionist pretending at Marxism. It was you who called me a murderer and terrorist - not the other way around "dude". You will go to any length to slander someone and then pretend to be so self-righteous. Why don't you go whine and snivel to the moderators like usual! There is no polite way of saying how much I detest you as a fraud so I will leave it at this LRNA clearly states that fascism is alive and well in the US and I will be glad to post their articles if needed. 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
I think that we're going overboard here with this statement produced renew by Waistline; we can see that Waistline has already disassociated himself from the "extermination" word; so you're SAFE, don't worry. NO one here is advocating Terrorism or the like, as I see it. Also, No need to summons the attention of the oppressive police State by pretending to be so sanctimoniously vigilant on this matter. There is class war all over this world and we are quite conscious of how murderous the Imperialists are. However comrade Scott has phrased his contempt in the past were mere passionate words and not a call to anything; and regardless, I'm sure that the political police has an eye and ear on each one of us here already. The fact that we need to watch our "p's" and "q's" is in itself a sign of the repression against the angry people and certainly revolutionaries. f580 --- On Mon, 12/20/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 12:27 PM I do not understand the questions below in the context of the statement produced. Please explain or reformulate. Advocacy of extermination of individuals as they constitute class; and a call for "violent extermination" of these individuals is akin to the reality of German fascism and Indian genocide. Waistline. In a message dated 12/20/2010 3:13:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kale_moshaa...@yahoo.com writes: Doesn't Marx say that the only War is Class War? How do you expect to win a war for the Worker? * From: _waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) <_waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) > Subject: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: _marxist-leninist-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu_ (mailto:marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu) Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 3:10 PM I denounce the statement below advocating the violent extermination of people/classes, and consider such advocacy political terrorism, unacceptable to a discussion list such as this. I have no connection with or anything to do with individuals advocating extermination - in this case violent extermination, of individuals as these individuals constitute themselves into classes. I further admit to having no political or personal connection, personal private conversations, and/or personal private contact, with the author below. Nor have I every engaged in any discussion of extermination of people/classes with anyone. Waistline In a message dated 12/18/2010 8:10:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, __mark1scot...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:_mark1scot...@yahoo.com) writes: You are such a fraud it is unbelievable. From the moment you started referring to me slanderously years ago, especially in regards to my past military service, is when the so-called name calling began initiated by you. It was you who began the slander and referring to you as a deiviant, apologist and such is in line with describing a revisionist. Look at all the writings of Lenin and others in their references to deviants. I make no hidden insinuations here...I have absolutely no respect for you so let's get it clear now because I will not lower myself to your gutter standards again. Let's look at the archives "dude", here is what created my animosity towards you according to what you wrote "dude": "I mention this Mark because you fucked with the wrong nigga." "You are a fool and thug." These are only 2 of the many name calling references you started with me yet want to self-righteously claim you don't resort to name calling. These two quotes of name calling was made by you because I said I believed in the violent extermination of the US bourgeoisie which was written on Friday, Dec 30, 2005. The article was entitled by you RE: Yu Chi Chan - Black Panthers 2, Mark as murderer and Terrorist. You so hypocritically love to turn everything on its head and pretend you are so principled but you are nothing but a bourgeois loving revisionist pretending at Marxism. It was you who called me a murderer and terrorist - not the other way around "dude". You will go to any length to slander someone and then pretend to be so self-righteous. Why don't you go whine and snivel to the moderators like usual! There is no polite way of saying how much I detest you as a fraud so I will leave it at this LRNA clearly states that fascism is alive and well in the US and I will be glad to post their articles if needed. Mark Scott ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list M
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
I do not understand the questions below in the context of the statement produced. Please explain or reformulate. Advocacy of extermination of individuals as they constitute class; and a call for "violent extermination" of these individuals is akin to the reality of German fascism and Indian genocide. Waistline. In a message dated 12/20/2010 3:13:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kale_moshaa...@yahoo.com writes: Doesn't Marx say that the only War is Class War? How do you expect to win a war for the Worker? * From: _waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) <_waistli...@aol.com_ (mailto:waistli...@aol.com) > Subject: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: _marxist-leninist-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu_ (mailto:marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu) Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 3:10 PM I denounce the statement below advocating the violent extermination of people/classes, and consider such advocacy political terrorism, unacceptable to a discussion list such as this. I have no connection with or anything to do with individuals advocating extermination - in this case violent extermination, of individuals as these individuals constitute themselves into classes. I further admit to having no political or personal connection, personal private conversations, and/or personal private contact, with the author below. Nor have I every engaged in any discussion of extermination of people/classes with anyone. Waistline In a message dated 12/18/2010 8:10:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, __mark1scot...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:_mark1scot...@yahoo.com) writes: You are such a fraud it is unbelievable. From the moment you started referring to me slanderously years ago, especially in regards to my past military service, is when the so-called name calling began initiated by you. It was you who began the slander and referring to you as a deiviant, apologist and such is in line with describing a revisionist. Look at all the writings of Lenin and others in their references to deviants. I make no hidden insinuations here...I have absolutely no respect for you so let's get it clear now because I will not lower myself to your gutter standards again. Let's look at the archives "dude", here is what created my animosity towards you according to what you wrote "dude": "I mention this Mark because you fucked with the wrong nigga." "You are a fool and thug." These are only 2 of the many name calling references you started with me yet want to self-righteously claim you don't resort to name calling. These two quotes of name calling was made by you because I said I believed in the violent extermination of the US bourgeoisie which was written on Friday, Dec 30, 2005. The article was entitled by you RE: Yu Chi Chan - Black Panthers 2, Mark as murderer and Terrorist. You so hypocritically love to turn everything on its head and pretend you are so principled but you are nothing but a bourgeois loving revisionist pretending at Marxism. It was you who called me a murderer and terrorist - not the other way around "dude". You will go to any length to slander someone and then pretend to be so self-righteous. Why don't you go whine and snivel to the moderators like usual! There is no polite way of saying how much I detest you as a fraud so I will leave it at this LRNA clearly states that fascism is alive and well in the US and I will be glad to post their articles if needed. 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
Re: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . .
Doesn't Marx say that the only War is Class War? How do you expect to win a war for the Worker? --- On Mon, 12/20/10, waistli...@aol.com wrote: From: waistli...@aol.com Subject: [MLL] I denounce the statement below advocating . . . . . To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 3:10 PM I denounce the statement below advocating the violent extermination of people/classes, and consider such advocacy political terrorism, unacceptable to a discussion list such as this. I have no connection with or anything to do with individuals advocating extermination - in this case violent extermination, of individuals as these individuals constitute themselves into classes. I further admit to having no political or personal connection, personal private conversations, and/or personal private contact, with the author below. Nor have I every engaged in any discussion of extermination of people/classes with anyone. Waistline In a message dated 12/18/2010 8:10:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, _mark1scot...@yahoo.com_ (mailto:mark1scot...@yahoo.com) writes: You are such a fraud it is unbelievable. From the moment you started refering to me slanderously years ago, especially in regards to my past military service, is when the so-called name calling began initiated by you. It was you who began the slander and refering to you as a deiviant, apologist and such is in line with describing a revisionist. Look at all the writings of Lenin and others in their references to deviants. I make no hidden insinuations here...I have absolutely no respect for you so let's get it clear now because I will not lower myself to your gutter standards again. Let's look at the archives "dude", here is what created my animosity towards you according to what you wrote "dude": "I mention this Mark because you fucked with the wrong nigga." "You are a fool and thug." These are only 2 of the many name calling references you started with me yet want to self-righteously claim you don't resort to name calling. These two quotes of name calling was made by you because I said I believed in the violent extermination of the US bourgeoisie which was written on Friday, Dec 30, 2005. The article was entitled by you RE: Yu Chi Chan - Black Panthers 2, Mark as murderer and Terrorist. You so hypocritically love to turn everything on its head and pretend you are so principled but you are nothing but a bourgeois loving revisionist pretending at Marxism. It was you who called me a murderer and terrorist - not the other way around "dude". You will go to any length to slander someone and then pretend to be so self-righteous. Why don't you go whine and snivel to the moderators like usual! There is no polite way of saying how much I detest you as a fraud so I will leave it at this LRNA clearly states that fascism is alive and well in the US and I will be glad to post their articles if needed. 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
