A Number of Misc Questions

[amandevsingh]

Please Note: I am a young comrade, I am only in high school.


Imperialism: At school I have always been taught that Imperialism is the practice of taking colonies, am I wrong? If not, in Neo-Marxist Essays, why do they still use it? Or am I reading the wrong essays. :p
Historical Materialism: I know that it may be an obvious question, but can you explain in simple terms?
Revolution: I have read the works of Che, Bhagat Singh, Mao, and Giap on Guerrilla Warfare. I am fairly comfortable with the stage of revolution. I am not sure of how to help other countries with their revolutions. In case your wondering, I want to begin a revolution in a south asian country; hopefully Naxalites will have gained larger sway in India.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat: The conventional suppressions of worker's rights are weak tactics. Rather then collectivising farming, etc. I would give the land to the farmers who till it. Education, health care and overall living conditions would be better then in America, Canada, or any capitalist society.

Thanks in advance,
Com. Amandev Singh

[amandevsingh]

Your explanations have helped me lots, thanks. I understand the Imperialism idea now. Materialism is also understood, essentially. I was not refering to Mao's political ideas, but only his military doctrine. I am not a Maoist, by the way. I also meant the last remark in a visionary sort of way. I was aware that these reforms were wrestled from the hands of Bourgeoisie.

[mikelepore]

My understanding is that the word "imperialism" refers to an ECONOMIC extraction from the ruled class of one country by the ruling class of another country. It often LEADS TO military force. For example, before Hawaii became a U.S. state, sugar planters from the U.S. operating in Hawaii arranged for an invasion by the U.S. Marines to promote their property interests. The United Fruit Company from the U.S. operating in Guatemala arranged for U.S. military force to enact a coup. The overthrow of Allende in Chile was initiated in response to the nationalization of the property of the Anaconda Copper Company from the U.S. Iraq and oil, everyone here knows that story. Not only U.S. policy, but all empires generally. Before and during World War 2, the purpose of Japan's invasions of British Malaya, Burma, Singapore and Thailand were to intended to acquire rice, oil, rubber and a few metals, primarily tin and tungsten.

[ZeroNowhere]

Historical Materialism: I know that it may be an obvious question, but can you explain in simple terms?
Humans and material conditions interact with each other, rather than humans being merely mechanically controlled by material conditions, or material conditions being unimportant and only ideas having import (Marx mocks this by relating a tale of a man who believed that men only drowned in water due to believing in gravity). Ideas are influenced by material conditions as well, as ideas come from the human brain, rather than having an independent existence.
'Economic conditions' are, to use a metaphor, the 'base' upon which ideas and such form a 'superstructure'."According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life." "What we understand by the economic conditions which we regard as the determining basis of the history of society are the methods by which human beings in a given society produce their means of subsistence and exchange the products among themselves (in so far as division of labour exists). Thus the entire technique of production and transport is here included. According to our conception this technique also determines the method of exchange and, further, the division of products, and with it, after the dissolution of tribal society, the division into classes also and hence the relations of lordship and servitude and with them the state, politics, law, etc. Under economic conditions are further included the geographical basis on which they operate and those remnants of earlier stages of economic development which have actually been transmitted and have survived--often only through tradition or the force of inertia; also of course the external milieu which surrounds this form of society." Also, "Political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc., development is based on economic development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic base. It is not that the economic position is the cause and alone active, while everything else only has a passive effect. There is, rather, interaction on the basis of the economic necessity, which ultimately always asserts itself. The state, for instance, exercises an influence by tariffs, free trade, good or bad fiscal system; and even the deadly inanition and impotence of the German petit-bourgeois, arising from the miserable economic position of Germany from 1640 to 1830 and expressing itself at first in pietism, then in sentimentality and cringing servility to princes and nobles, was not without economic effect. It was one of the greatest hindrances to recovery and was not shaken until the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars made the chronic misery an acute one. So it is not, as people try here and there conveniently to imagine, that the economic position produces an automatic effect. Men make their history themselves, only in given surroundings which condition it and on the basis of actual relations already existing, among which the economic relations, however much they may be influenced by the other political and ideological ones, are still ultimately the decisive ones, forming the red thread which runs through them and alone leads to understanding."
Basically, historical materialism is a tool for analyzing history.


Dictatorship of the ProletariatThe political form corresponding to revolution, and enforcement of the expropriation of the expropriators through law.

[scarletghoul]

Not sure if this is a question, but you should perhaps try to understand Maoism. It is not really socialist. It substitutes nations for working class and thus becomes a spokesperson for the "local or native" bourgeois. So, for example, though India has got rid of the British imperialist bourgeoisie, the Indian bourgeoisie still hold a formidable bulwark against the working class, thus proving that the working class has to carry on the fight against the bourgeois on an international rather than national level. The Maoists are more of nationalist chauvinists than communists. But the situation in India is that neo-liberalism has become the national religion and noone, including the official left parties are opposed to it. This is something that needs to be changed.
This makes no sense. India isn't maoist. the official left parties in india are not maoist.
maoists are fighting against the modern indian state right now, fighting against the local bourgeoisie. you really need to understand maoism more

[Agrippa]

Please Note: I am a young comrade, I am only in high school.


Imperialism: At school I have always been taught that Imperialism is the practice of taking colonies, am I wrong? If not, in Neo-Marxist Essays, why do they still use it? Or am I reading the wrong essays. :p
Historical Materialism: I know that it may be an obvious question, but can you explain in simple terms?
Revolution: I have read the works of Che, Bhagat Singh, Mao, and Giap on Guerrilla Warfare. I am fairly comfortable with the stage of revolution. I am not sure of how to help other countries with their revolutions. In case your wondering, I want to begin a revolution in a south asian country; hopefully Naxalites will have gained larger sway in India.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat: The conventional suppressions of worker's rights are weak tactics. Rather then collectivising farming, etc. I would give the land to the farmers who till it. Education, health care and overall living conditions would be better then in America, Canada, or any capitalist society.

Thanks in advance,
Com. Amandev Singh

re #4: Why do you "want to begin a revolution in" a country you don't even live in? There's no way that would work. Why not work within the community to you already live in? And are you sure these people want someone who doesn't even live in their part of the world leading their revolution?

[scarletghoul]

I'm assuming he is from India or thereabouts, or is part of the indian diaspora overseas, so theres nothing wrong with him wanting to help in south asian revolution. revolution is a lot closer in south asia than north america too


wut?

:lol: Are you high? Where did I claim that?
You used India as an example of maoists being national chauvenists that do not fight the native bourgeoisie, which is weird because thats what the maoists in india are doing
you also said that the main left parties are not opposed to neo-liberalism, which may be true but is nothing to do with maoism


So are Islamic terrorists. Are they communists as well? Do you think communism can be achieved by a bunch of people in the forests without the participation of the mass of the working class? This is what the Maoists are doing. They are fighting a so-called "comprador bourgeoisie" who supposedly cater to "foreign interests".
by "a bunch of people in the forests" do you mean the peasents? history has shown that the peasentry are a great revolutionary force.
and yeah, of course they are fighting the indian bourgeoisie who are catering to foreign interests (the interests of foreign bourgeoisie), what is wrong with that? the fact that the indian bourgeoisie cater for foreign bourgeoisie proves nothing

[Agrippa]

revolution is a lot closer in south asia than north america too

All the more reason to focus on building a movement in North America, if that's where the author writes from. If the author does have connections to India, though, I retract my stateme.t

[amandevsingh]

re #4: Why do you "want to begin a revolution in" a country you don't even live in? There's no way that would work. Why not work within the community to you already live in? And are you sure these people want someone who doesn't even live in their part of the world leading their revolution?

I am from India originally (Now in Canada), my great grandfather being Harkishan Singh Surjeet, this is why I want to go back there. Plus I feel for those living in absolute poverty (i.e. Indian Subcontinent) and want to make a BIG difference. There is little chance of a Communist revolution in North America; I think it will take no less then the Fifth International for that to happen. I'm sure so long as I fight with Bengalis, Nepali, Bhutanese, or Pakistani by my side, I will be accepted by the people. I am studying with medical school in mind, so that I can provide free services for these people.

Note: I have not been involved with Indian politics nor do I know any Marxists save a few childhood friends in India, but I've been there a few times.

[Agrippa]

I think it is very courageous and wise of you to connect the development of your political consciousness to your ancestry, cultural heritage, and home.


If you are emotionally attached to that region of your world, see it as your homeland, or at least a place where your roots reach deep into the ground, then obviously it is going to be a pretty central factor of your personal political struggle.

Still, do not cause yourself unneeded stress and guilt because you live in the First World and feel you are not doing enough to alleviate the suffering in other parts of the world which you perceive as suffering more from poverty, misery, and oppression. Keep in mind that many suffer from extreme poverty here as well, and that many third worlders resent "tourist-activism" and the notions that they need "help" from first worlders to create a resistance movement, although your actions do not come close to either of these things.

As for your comments about North America, I take objection. North America has had as vibrant and dynamic of a radical history as India. Creating revolution may be difficult in North America, but no more so than India or any other part of the world. Political consciousness is very low throughout the world. It may take the creation of the Fifth International, but if that is a nessicary task we must set about doing it no matter how difficult. That you wish to return to India and use your resources to aid the struggle there is legitimate. Don't let it stop you from helping to organize a resistance movement in Canada as long as you are here.....

[amandevsingh]

This stress, not guilt mind you, is necessary for me. The only way I can be happy is that if every single human being, my equals, are equal in circumstance to myself.


As for your comments about North America, I take objection. North America has had as vibrant and dynamic of a radical history as India. Creating revolution may be difficult in North America, but no more so than India or any other part of the world. Political consciousness is very low throughout the world. It may take the creation of the Fifth International, but if that is a nessicary task we must set about doing it no matter how difficult. That you wish to return to India and use your resources to aid the struggle there is legitimate. Don't let it stop you from helping to organize a resistance movement in Canada as long as you are here.....

I have contacted the CPC(ML) but, lets face it, they are Social-Democrats. They have no revolutionary mind. I meant not to imply that North America's history isn't as rich as my own nation's, but I mean that the mere mention of my Marxist beliefs have often started fight in my school. This is less then lacking political consciousness. But, regardless, I have often participated in protests in Canada. As I have no I intention of staying here after university, so to plan a real resistance movement is unrealistic, and unfair to those who follow me.

Note: I consider all of the sub-continent to be my land, and the residents of those countries my brothers. My brothers, however, mayn't think the the same way :crying:. So this is why I say 'South Asian Countries' not 'India'

[amandevsingh]

The very same! :D

[amandevsingh]

What state are you from?:confused:
In India, I mean, refering to Socialist