Well chief Sometimes it is very discouraging to find lunatics like you cadre in such places, Well I might have been advised of your likes and apparently you have displayed total ignorance in the context given bellow.
It is also clear that you are just the implication given to us from the contribution... For start I understand that the implications set by Malema, Floyd and whoever might be aspiring to be such are just a deteriorated path towards the distraction of the working class struggle... Secondly Mr Kotanist you should have followed well the life and times of your Ideal philosopher (Kotane). I am afraid to say this he like any other person with limited class conscious have made serious eras in interpreting Marxism and by this change he has also opened a valve of the current situation... I would possible say that the ongoing race associated of the likes of you is one of the fundamental unprincipled manner that you can associate him with, sometimes it is not a matter of intolerance but it is sometimes used by those to unsurfaced the realities faced by our society. Let me rest await your response in these arrangements > Sthe, > > I have went through your response and have not come to say I may not be a > Commissar. You do not appoint yourself a commissar and I hope you > understand that. The very same information you sent to me I have went > through it when I was developing through the ranks of the party structures > until I graduated to be who I am, which you may not want to hear. I do not > copy and paste French text as it was informed by material conditions which > if you are alive will agree that we have advanced from that period. I have > a collection of the reference you claim to understand without putting it > into practicality in our context. > > What I appreciate though is the fact that the response you sent will > enable other aspiring Communist to understand the path we went through > which you are going through. > > Forward to working class hegemony in society not in the ANC. Because if we > change society, the ANC will change but if we change the ANC society might > not be ready to change. Because theory without practice if nothing. > > > I remain, > > A Kotanist to the end. > >>>> Sithembewena tsembeyi <[email protected]> 3/4/2010 1:46 PM >>> > Nndwamato!! > > Let me first acknowledge the high density of energy you have in taking > time to participate in these discussions, however like I said before you > gradually missed the point yet again. > > Secondly let us appreciate the fact that you have appointed yourself as a > commissar, by that virtue seems like you have entitled yourself to > monopolyof knowledge in the South African context of political > direction... however yet again contradictions are part of your comprador > understanding. > > Let me firstly assure you that I do acknowledge the contributions of a lot > of comrades that have taken this party to where it is today, you have in > your inferences singled out few comrades and by my understanding they also > like your self attached Malema they also led in a collective. What seem to > amuse is your distortions in your inferences singling out Kotane as the > mighty individual who by your own words "which only took the genius of > Moses Kotane to clarify the importance of both struggles being fought at > the same time". You seem not to be understanding the political setup of > organisations let alone the Party, the principle is that in the Party > there is democratic centralism which has nothing to do with individualism > unless you refer to a Stalinist Party. > > What appears to you as the genius of Kotane was in fact a position > advanced by a collective of internationalists in the Comintern. It was > same meeting attended by, if not white philosophers then white > revolutionaries that also clarified the SA national question. This > question was clarified as the native republic theses. The international > perspective from the comintern was that SA could not have Socialism > without resolving the three contradictions that are inter-connected. By > the way, you need to understand that uKotane has never functioned in > isolation from the leadership collective oor articulated any position that > contradicts the Party position like Malema and others do recently. > > This sudden and unfortunate culture of referring to the SACP as the party > of Kotane, can not be seen as a matter of principle since as it seeks to > defeat the objective. It is not about whether you will accept it or not, > it is about the history and future of the Party. From its inception, the > collective leadership of the CPSA later to be called the SACP has always > provided great leadership, so such inferences nullifies the contribution > made by Party before Kotane could become a member. Not withstanding the > immaculate role played by u-Kotane, our concern is that GS are not > organisation but their political face. In any case, if you see this as a > factional position you therefore need to learn more about factionalism and > look as to whether yours isn't empiricist or dogmatist. Whatever role > played by Kotane, Slovo, Chris and many other sung and unsung heroes of > our revolutionary struggle of the working class. > > I seem to be not understanding what led to your conclusion that Malema is > immune from been identified as an agent of imperialism. > > "the more pure democracy is the more clearly does the oppression of > capital and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie come to light". these are > the Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and the Proletarian Dictatorship > Finally, the Theses remind us that > the World War was fought "in the name of liberty and equality". and > through barbaric in mankind's history has seen lies repeated too many > times, to justify World War II and innumerable local wars and massacres > since then. > > my on going referral to these Theses today is also justified by the need > to give the lies to the bourgeois propaganda which pretends that communism > is the same thing as Stalinism... these are also informed by the on going > attack to communist by the Malema Fundamentalist cult. I will forever > resist to be manipulated for my membership is to that of cruelty to > humankind... like before I had made reference to the differences between > Humankind and mankind. > > "the dictatorship of the proletariat is the forcible suppression of the > resistance of the exploiters, that is, the minority of the population, the > large landowners and capitalists", and that it is "an extension of actual > democratic usages, on a scale never before known in the world, to the > working classes whom capitalism enslaved". if you could care to further > explain to me what difference is there from Malema and the YL cue from > what is quoted above. > > > Given below here are 21 point from the Text of the Theses to assist you > not to give unfounded explanations of these Theses > > Text of the Theses > 1. The growth of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat in all > countries has provoked thebourgeoisie and their agents in the workers' > organisations to convulsive efforts to find theoreticalarguments in > defence of the rule of the exploiters. Among these, particular emphasis is > placed onthe rejection of dictatorship and the defence of democracy. The > falseness and hypocrisy of this > argument, repeated in a thousand forms in the capitalist press and at the > February 1919 Bernconference of the Yellow International, is however clear > to anyone who is unwilling to committreachery to the principles of > socialism. > > 2. In the first place, the argument uses abstract concepts of "democracy" > and "dictatorship", withoutspecifying what class is in question. Putting > the question in this way, outside or above the classstandpoint, as though > it were valid as a standpoint of the entire people, is a downright mockery > ofthe basic theory of socialism, namely the theory of the class struggle, > which is still recognised in > words, it is true, by the socialists who have gone over to the camp of the > bourgeoisie, but judging bytheir deeds is forgotten. For in no civilised > capitalist country is there "democracy in the abstract",there is only > bourgeois democracy, and the question is not one of "dictatorship in the > abstract" butof the dictatorship of the oppressed class, that is, of the > proletariat, over the oppressors and > exploiters, that is, the bourgeoisie, in order to overcome the resistance > put up by the exploiters in > the effort to maintain their rule. > > 3. History teaches us that an oppressed class has never and can never come > to power withoutpassing through a period of dictatorship, that is, without > the conquest of political power and theforcible suppression of the most > desperate and frenzied resistance, that shrinks from no crime,which is > always put up by the exploiters. The bourgeoisie, whose rule is now > defended by socialistswho express hostility to "dictatorship in general" > and stand up body and soul for "democracy ingeneral", won their power in > the civilized countries by a series of revolts, civil wars, the > forciblesuppression of monarchical rule, of the feudal lords and > slave-owners, and of their attempts atrestoration. Thousands and millions > of times, in their books and pamphlets, their congress > resolutions and speeches, socialists in every country have explained to > the people the class characterof these bourgeois revolutions. That is why > the present defence of "bourgeois democracy" inspeeches about "democracy", > and the present outcry against the proletarian dictatorship in theclamour > about "dictatorship", is an outright betrayal of socialism, objectively a > going over to the > camp of the bourgeoisie, a denial of the right of the proletariat to its > political revolution, a defenceof bourgeois reformism, and this precisely > at the historical moment when bourgeois reformism hasgone to pieces > throughout the world and when the war has created a revolutionary > situation. > > 4. By recognizing the class character of bourgeois democracy, of bourgeois > parliamentarianism, allsocialists have articulated the ideas expressed > with the greatest scientific precision by Marx andEngels when they said > that even the most democratic bourgeois republic is nothing but > theinstrument by which the bourgeoisie oppress the working class, by which > a handful of capitalists > keeps the working masses. There is not a single revolutionary or a single > Marxist among those whonow raise such an outcry against dictatorship and > advocate democracy who has not loudly andsolemnly sworn to the workers > that he acknowledges this basic truth of socialism; but now, whenferment > and movement have started among the revolutionary proletariat, aimed at > breaking this andfighting for the dictatorship of the proletariat, these > traitors to socialism present the case as thoughthe bourgeoisie had made a > gift of "pure democracy" to the workers, as though the > bourgeoisierenounced resistance and were ready to submit to a workers > majority, as though in the democraticrepublic there were no State > apparatus for the oppression of labour by capital. > > 5. The Paris Commune, which everyone who wanted to be considered a > socialist extolled in words,for they knew that the working masses had a > great and genuine sympathy with it, provedparticularly clearly the > historical conditioning and limited value of bourgeois > parliamentarianismand bourgeois democracy, which are highly progressive > institutions in comparison with the Middle > Ages, but which in the epoch of proletarian revolution inevitably require > to be changed from theground up. It was Marx himself, who placed the > highest value on the historical significance of theCommune, who in his > analysis of it demonstrated the exploiting character of bourgeois > democracyand bourgeois parliamentarianism, under which the oppressed class > is given the right, once in > several years, to decide which deputy of the possessing classes shall > represent and betray the peoplein Parliament. It is now, when the Soviet > movement which is seizing the entire world is carryingforward before all > eyes the cause of the Commune, that the traitors to socialism forget the > practicalexperience and the concrete lessons of the Paris Commune and > repeat the old bourgeois rubbishabout "democracy in general". The Commune > was not a parliamentary institution. > > 6. The significance of the Commune consists further in this, that it made > an attempt to destroy andutterly root out the bourgeois State machine, the > apparatus of officials, court, army, and police, andto replace it by the > self-governing mass organization of workers without any separation > oflegislative and executive powers. All bourgeois democratic republics of > our time, including the > German, which the traitors to socialism, making a mockery of truth, call > proletarian, retain thisbourgeois State apparatus. That proves once more, > clearly and unmistakably, that the outcry indefence of "democracy" is > nothing but defence of the bourgeoisie and their privileges > ofexploitation. > > 7. "Freedom of assembly" can be used as an example of the demand for "pure > democracy". Everyclass-conscious worker who has not broken with his class > grasps immediately that it would bemonstrous to promise the exploiters > freedom of assembly in times and situations in which they areresisting > their overthrow and defending their privileges. Neither in England in > 1649, nor in Francein 1793, did the revolutionary bourgeoisie guarantee > freedom of assembly to the royalists andnobility when these summoned alien > troops to the country and "assembled" to organize an attemptat > restoration. If the bourgeoisie of today, who have long since become > reactionary, demand that theproletariat shall guarantee in advance that > "freedom of assembly" shall be assured to the exploitersregardless of the > resistance the capitalists put up to their expropriation, the workers will > only laugh > at such bourgeois hypocrisy. On the other hand the workers know very well > that even in the mostdemocratic bourgeois republic "freedom of a assembly" > is an empty phrase, for the rich have thebest public and private buildings > at their disposal, have also enough leisure for meetings, and enjoythe > protection of the bourgeois apparatus of power. The proletariat of town > and country, as well asthe small peasants, that is the overwhelming > majority of the population, have neither the first northe second nor the > third. So long as this is true, "equality", that is, "pure democracy", is > a deception.To win real equality, to make a reality of democracy for the > workers, the exploiters must first bedeprived of all public and private > mansions, the workers must be given leisure and their freedom ofassembly > defended by armed workers and not by the offspring of the nobility or > officers fromcapitalist circles in command of an intimidated rank and > file.Only after such changes is it possible to speak of "freedom of > assembly", of equality, withoutmocking the workers, the labouring people, > the poor. But nobody can bring these changes aboutexcept the vanguard of > the working people, the proletariat, by overthrowing the exploiters, > thebourgeoisie. > > 8. "Freedom of the press" is another leading watchword of "pure > democracy". But the workersknow, and the socialists of all countries have > admitted it a million times, that this freedom isdeceptive so long as the > best printing works and the biggest paper supplies are in > capitalitalisthands, and so long as capital retains its power over the > press, a power which throughout the world is > expressed more clearly, sharply, and cynically, the more developed the > democracy and therepublican regime, as for example in America. To win real > equality and real democracy for theworking masses, for the workers and > peasants, the capitalists must first be deprived of thepossibility of > getting writers in their service, of buying up publishing houses and > bribingnewspapers. And for that it is necessary to throw off the yoke of > capital, to overthrow the exploitersand to crush their resistance. The > capitalists have always given the name of freedom to the freedomof the > rich to make profits and the freedom of the poor to die of hunger. The > capitalists give thename of freedom of the press to the freedom of the > rich to bribe the press, the freedom to use wealthto create and distort > so-called public opinion. The defenders of "pure democracy" reveal > themselvesonce more as defenders of the dirty and corrupt system of the > rule of the rich over the means ofmass education, as deceivers of the > people who with fine sounding but thoroughly false phrasesdivert them from > the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capital. Real > freedom and > equality will be found in the system the communists establish, in which > there will be no opportunityto get rich at the expense of others, no > objective possibility of subjecting the press, directly orindirectly, to > the power of money, where nothing will prevent the workers (or any large > group ofworkers) from having and employing equal rights to use the presses > and paper belonging to society. > > 9. The history of the 19th and 20th centuries showed us, even before the > war, what this muchpraised"pure democracy" really means under capitalism. > Marxists have always maintained that themore developed, the more "pure" > democracy is, the more openly, sharply, and ruthlessly does theclass > struggle proceed, the more clearly does the oppression of capital and the > dictatorship of thebourgeoisie come to light. The Dreyfus affair in > republican France, the bloody collisions betweenstriking workers and the > mercenaries armed by the capitalists in the free and democratic republic > ofAmerica, these and a thousand similar facts disclose the truth which the > bourgeoisie try in vain toconceal, namely that in reality terror and a > bourgeois dictatorship rule the most democratic republic,and come openly > to the surface whenever it seems to the exploiters that the power of > capital isendangered. > > 10. The imperialist war of 1914-18 exposed the true character of bourgeois > democracy, once and forall, even to the backward workers, even in the > freest republics, as the dictatorship of thebourgeoisie. To enrich a group > of German and English mil millionaires and billionaires, dozens ofmillions > of men were killed and the military dictatorship of the bourgeoisie > established in the freestrepublics. This military dictatorship still > exists in the Entente countries even after the defeat ofGermany. It was > the war, more than anything else, that opened the eyes of working people, > tore thefalse tinsel from bourgeois democracy, and revealed to the people > the whole pit of speculation andgreed for profits during the war and in > connection with the war. The bourgeoisie waged this war inthe name of > freedom and equality; in the name of freedom and equality the war > contractorsenormously increased their wealth. No efforts of the yellow > Bern international will succeed inconcealing from the masses the > exploiting character of bourgeois freedom, bourgeois equality, > andbourgeois democracy, now fully exposed. > > 11. In the country of Europe where capitalism has been most highly > developed, that is, in Germany, > the first months of full republican freedom which followed the downfall of > imperialist Germany, > showed the German workers and the entire world the real class-content of > the bourgeois democratic > republic. The murder of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg is an event of > world-historical > significance not only because the best people and leaders of the truly > proletarian communist > international perished tragically, but also because it finally showed up > the class character of the > leading European state, of, it can be said without exaggeration, the > leading state in the world. If > prisoners, that is, people who have been taken under protection by the > State power, can be murdered > with impunity by officers and capitalists under a government of > social-patriots, the democratic > republic in which this can happen is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. > Those who express > indignation over the murder of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg but do > not understand this > truth only demonstrate their obtuseness or their hypocrisy. In one of the > freest and most advanced > republics of the world, in the German republic, there is freedom to kill > the imprisoned leaders of the > proletariat and to go unpunished. It cannot be otherwise as long as > capitalism remains, for the > development of democracy does not blunt but sharpens the class struggle, > which has now, as a result > of the war and its consequences, reached boiling-point. > All over the civilised world Bolsheviks are being deported, persecuted, > imprisoned; in Switzerland, > one of the freest bourgeois republics, and in America, there are pogroms > against the Bolsheviks. > From the standpoint of "democracy in general", or "pure democracy", it is > simply ludicrous that > progressive, civilised, democratic countries, armed to the teeth, should > fear the presence of a few > dozen people from backwards, hungry, ruined Russia, described as savages s > and criminals in > millions of copies of bourgeois newspapers. It is obvious that a social > system that can give rise to > such glaring contradictions is in reality a dictatorship of the > bourgeoisie. > > 12. In such a state of affairs the dictatorship of the proletariat is not > merely wholly justified, as a > means of overwhelming the exploiters and overcoming their resistance, but > quite essential for the > mass of workers as their only protection against the bourgeois > dictatorship which led to the war and > is getting ready for new wars. > The chief thing that socialists don't understand, a failure which reflects > their intellectual shortsightedness, > their dependence on bourgeois prejudices, their political treachery to the > proletariat, is > that when, in capitalist society, the class struggle on which it rests > becomes more acute, there is > nothing between dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and dictatorship of the > proletariat. The dream of > another, third way is the reactionary lament of the petty bourgeoisie. > Proof of this can be found in > the experience of more than a hundred years of bourgeois democracy and the > workers' movement > in all advanced countries, and particularly the experience of the last > five years. The same proof is > furnished by economic theory, by the entire content of Marxism, which > analyses the economic > necessity of bourgeois dictatorship in very commodity economy, a > dictatorship which can be > abolished by none other than the class which through the development of > capitalism itself develops > and grows, becomes more organised and powerful, that is, by the class of > proletarians. > > 13. The second theoretical and political mistake of the socialists is > their failure to understand that > the forms of democracy have inevitably changed in the centuries since it > first appeared in the > Ancient World, as one ruling class gave way to another. In the republics > of Ancient Greece, in the > medieval cities, in advanced capitalist States, democracy has different > forms and varying scope. It > would be the greatest nonsense to assume that the most profound revolution > in mankind's history, > the first transference of power from the hands of the exploiting minority > to the hands of the > exploited majority, could take place within the framework of the old > bourgeois parliamentary > democracy, without the greatest changes, without the creation of new forms > of democracy, new > institutions, new conditions for their use, etc. > > 14. The dictatorship of the proletariat is like the dictatorship of other > classes in that, like any > dictatorship, it originates in the necessity of suppressing by force the > resistance of the class which is > losing its political power. The fundamental difference between the > dictatorship of the proletariat and > the dictatorship of other classes, that of the large landowners in the > Middle Ages and that of the > bourgeoisie in all civilised capitalist countries, consists in this, that > while the dictatorship of the > large landowners and the bourgeoisie forcibly suppresses the resistance of > the overwhelming > majority of the population, namely the working masses, the dictatorship of > the proletariat is the > forcible suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, that is, the > minority of the population, the > large landowners and capitalists. > From this it follows further that the dictatorship of the proletariat must > inevitably involve not only a > change in the forms and institutions of democracy, but change of a kind > which results in an > extension of actual democratic usages, on a scale never before known in > the world, to the working > classes whom capitalism enslaved. > And in fact the forms taken by the dictatorship of the proletariat, which > have already been worked > out, that is, the Soviet power in Russia, the workers' councils in > Germany, the shop stewards" > committees in Britain and similar Soviet institutions in other countries, > all these make a reality of > democratic rights and privileges for the working classes, that is, for the > overwhelming majority of > the population; they mean that it becomes really possible to use these > rights and privileges in a way > and on a scale that was never even approximately possible in the best > democratic bourgeois > republics. > The essence of Soviet power lies in this, that the permanent and sole > foundation of the entire State > power, of the entire State apparatus, is the mass organisation of those > very classes which were > oppressed by the capitalists, that is, the workers and semi-proletarians > (peasants who do not exploit > labour and who are always forced to sell at least part of their labour). > The masses, who even in the > most democratic bourgeois republics, where in law they had equal rights, > but in fact were prevented > by a thousand ways and tricks from taking part in political life and > making use of democratic rights > and liberties, are now drawn into continuous, unhampered, and decisive > participation in the > democratic administration of the State. > > 15.The equality of citizens, regardless of sex, religious belief, race, > nationality, which bourgeois > democracy always promised everywhere but in fact never carried out, and > could not carry out > because of the role of capitalism, has been made a complete reality at one > stroke by the Soviet > regime, or the proletarian dictatorship, for only the power of the > workers, who are not interested in > private property in the means of production and in the struggle for their > distribution and > redistribution, is able to do this. > > 16. The old democracy, that is, bourgeois democracy and > parliamentarianism, was so organized that > it was the working classes who were most alien to the administrative > machine. The Soviet power, > the proletarian dictatorship, on the other hand, is so organized that it > brings the working masses > close to the administrative machine. The merging of legislative and > executive power in the Soviet > organization of the State serves the same purpose, as does the > substitution of the production unit, > the workshop or factory, for the territorial constituency. > > 17. The army was an instrument of oppression not only under the monarchy; > it is still that in all > bourgeois republics, even the most democratic. Only the Soviet power, as > the only established State > organisation of the very classes oppressed by the capitalists, is in a > position to abolish the > dependence of the military on the bourgeois command and really fuse the > proletariat with the > military, to arm the proletariat and disarm the bourgeoisie, without which > the victory of socialism is > impossible. > > 18. The Soviet organisation of the State is designed to give the > proletariat, as the class which was > most concentrated and educated by capitalism, the leading role in the > State. The experience of all > revolutions and all movements of enslaved classes, the experience of the > world socialist movement, > teaches us that only the proletariat is in a position to unite the > scattered and backward strata of the > working and exploited pop population and carry them along. > > 19. Only the Soviet organisation of the state is able to destroy, at one > stroke and completely, the old, > that is, the bourgeois apparatus of bureaucracy and judiciary, which under > capitalism, even in the > most democratic republic, remained and had to remain, being in fact for > the workers and the > working masses the greatest obstacle to making democracy effective. The > Paris Commune took the > first world historical step in this direction, the Soviet regime the > second. > > 20. The abolition of State power is the goal of all socialists, including > and above all Marx. Unless > this goal is reached true democracy, that is, equality and freedom, is not > attainable. But only Soviet > and proletarian democracy leads in fact to that goal, for it begins at > once to prepare for the complete > withering away of any kind of State by drawing the mass organisations of > the working people into > constant and unrestricted participation in State administration. > > 21. The complete bankruptcy of the socialists who met in Berne, the > complete absence of > understanding which they showed of the new, that is, proletarian > democracy, can be seen very > clearly from the following. On 10th February 1919 Branting declared the > international conference > of the Yellow International in Berne closed. On 11th February 1919 its > members in Be in Berlin > published an appeal of the "Independents" to the proletariat in Freiheit. > In this appeal the bourgeois > character of Scheidemann"s government was admitted. It was reproached for > wanting to abolish the > workers councils, which were called "bearers and defenders" of the > revolution, and the proposal > was made to legalize the councils, to give them statutory rights, to give > them the right to veto the > decisions of the National Assembly and refer the question at issue to a > national referendum. > Such a proposal reflects the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the > theoreticians who defend > democracy and have not understood its bourgeois character. This ridiculous > attempt to unite the > system of councils, that is, the proletarian dictatorship, with the > National Assembly, that is, the > dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, finally exposes the mental poverty of the > yellow socialists and > social-democrats, and their reactionary petty-bourgeois policy, as well as > their cowardly > concessions to the irresistibly growing forces of the new proletarian > democracy. > > The majority of the Yellow International in Berne, who condemned > Bolshevism but did not dare, for > fear of the working masses, to vote formally for a resolution on these > lines, acted correctly from the > class standpoint. This majority is completely at one with the Russian > Mensheviks and Social- > Revolutionaries and with the Scheidemanns in Germany. The Russian > Mensheviks and Social- > Revolutionaries, who complain of persecution by the Bolsheviks, try to > conceal the fact that this > persecution was provoked by their participation in the civil war on the > side of the bourgeoisie > against the proletariat. In precisely the same way the Scheidemanns and > their party in Germany took > part in the civil war on the side of the bourgeoisie against the workers. > It is therefore quite natural that the majority of those attending the > Yellow International in Berne > should come out in favour of condemning the Bolsheviks. But that did not > represent a defence of > "pure democracy"; it was the self-defence of people who feel that in the > civil war they are on the > side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. > For these reasons the decision of the majority of the Yellow International > must be described as > correct from the class point of view. But the proletariat should not fear > the truth, but look it straight > in the face and draw the political conclusions which follow. > On the basis of these theses and having heard the reports of the delegates > from various countries, > the congress of the Communist International declares that the chief task > of the Communist Parties in > countries where Soviet power is not established are: > > 1.To explain to the broad masses of the working class the historical > meaning of the political and > practical necessity of a new proletarian democracy which must replace > bourgeois democracy and > parliamentarianism. > > 2. To extend and build up workers councils in all branches of industry, in > the army and navy, and > amongst agricultural workers and small peasants > 3. To win an assured, conscious communist majority in the councils > > So dear Nndawamato I have my convictions clear and by these I do not > believe that Malema is the leader he publicly portrays to be infact him > and his lieutenants the likes of bo-Floyd are taking advantage of the > society and through the vulnerability of young aspirant petty bourgeois > like you with hope and believe that if you support their lumpen behavior > you will at a time be opportunistic enough to be in the same level as > their, while I do not discourage development of any one but I believe > walking the talk for leaders is pure egalitarianism. > > Socialismo O muerte!!! > > Hasta siempre la comandante!!! > > My dear lumpen Freind > > > > > -- > You are subscribed. This footer can help you. > Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to > this message. > You can visit the group WEB SITE at > http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery > options, pages, files and membership. > To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] > . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have > to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an > e-mail to this address (repeat): > [email protected] . > > -- > This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, > e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. > The full disclaimer details can be found at > http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html. > > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > MailScanner, > and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers for > their support. > > -- > You are subscribed. This footer can help you. > Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to > this message. > You can visit the group WEB SITE at > http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery > options, pages, files and membership. > To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] > . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have > to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an > e-mail to this address (repeat): > [email protected] . > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ South Africa's premier free email service - www.webmail.co.za ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For super low premiums, click here http://home.webmail.co.za/dd.pwm -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] .
