"Communist" Guerrilla Movements

[Paradox]

It was mentioned before, awhile back, in a thread about the Shining Path I think, that supporting "Communist" guerrilla organizations, regardless of what crimes they commit, was useful in achieving REAL Communism. These guerrilla groups when they come to power, simply become the new ruling class. They claim to be Communist, but they really just impliment state capitalism. Now the justification that was put forth to support these groups coming to power, was that they will help to rapidly industrialize the nations in which they take control, which would thereby bring us closer to a true Communist revolution taking place. Now I admit, these groups could rapidly industrialize the Third World undeveloped/less developed nations where they operate, but to look past the murder, torture, and repression these groups commit in the name of Communism, is just unacceptable to me. Not only that, but by them claiming to be Communist, once they commit such crimes as those mentioned, people will associate that type of activity with Communism. Of course, we could tell people "that's not Communism," which it's not, but the damage will already be done, much like how Leninism has tarnished the face of Marxism. In that sense, I see support for such brutal organizations as not only disgusting, but counterproductive. To say it's a good idea to support a murderous, repressive guerrilla organization that claims to be Communist, even when you know that they are not Communist, because it might speed up the transition to a true Communist movement just makes no sense to me.

Any thoughts?

[Clarksist]

If you decentralized power in the guerilla movements you may be able to eliminate post-revolution centralization.

[KptnKrill]

I think in the long-run these statist "communists" are more harmful than helpful. I mean stalin industrialised the soviet union, but was what he did really worth it? Or could other methods have been explored?

The only real solution is to end statism now, I don't know where Marx got his cockamanie ideas from but statism just leads away from communism not towards it. Regardless of who's in charge or how much propaganda you fill them with. And simply expecting it to wither away is ignorant of the purpose and power of the state. It exists to protect it's own existance and those that are part of it.

In short I say no no to the guerillas.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

I don't know why someone would say groups like the Shining Path would industrialize Peru. They are Maoist-inspired guerilla groups made up of the poorest layer of the peasantry. All such movements are dead ends that lead to petty-bourgeois nationalism not workers' states.

We need to focus on building an independent working-class party with a socialist plan and based on internationalism. One that involves raising the class consciousness of the masses.

When it comes to violence I believe: the ends justify the means if the means help bring about the ends. Guerilla armies that kill innocent civilians are both morally and politically reactionary. Such actions sow confusion in the ranks of the masses and alienate potential supporters.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:10 AM
I think in the long-run these statist "communists" are more harmful than helpful. I mean stalin industrialised the soviet union, but was what he did really worth it? Or could other methods have been explored?

The only real solution is to end statism now, I don't know where Marx got his cockamanie ideas from but statism just leads away from communism not towards it. Regardless of who's in charge or how much propaganda you fill them with. And simply expecting it to wither away is ignorant of the purpose and power of the state. It exists to protect it's own existance and those that are part of it.

In short I say no no to the guerillas.
That is a very simplistic and superficial view of the role of the state.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is simply the working-class organized as the ruling class.

Whereas under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the state is a repressive instrument used to defend the status of a small minority against the large majority of the population. It's the opposite after a proletarian revolution where the state defends the rights of the vast majority of the people against the reaction of the old ruling class.

A workers' state ceases to be a state in that sense.

[Snitza]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:35 AM
When it comes to violence I believe: the ends justify the means if the means help bring about the ends. Guerilla armies that kill innocent civilians are both morally and politically reactionary. Such actions sow confusion in the ranks of the masses and alienate potential supporters.
To say that any revolutionary groups in 3rd-world countries, who are almost 100% of the time revolting against US Imperialism(in one form or another) are "morally reactionary" for harming civilians is silly.

We may not agree with killing civilians, or recruiting child soldiers or taking part in drug trafficking(FARC), but who would you rather support? The really reactionary capitalist governments and despotisms(Nepal) who are even more violent and oppressive, but with the added twist of being lackeys for the US? I don't know about you, but I'd support just about any group thats aims are to weaken US influence abroad. Why does it matter, objectively, if this group that is fighting against a reactionary capitalist government kills civilians or not? Does this mean they no longer "deserve" our support because they're somehow less "morally-correct", or some other abstraction?

This can only, in the long run, return America to a more socially concious working class "state of mind", once outsourcing becomes obsolete.

[farleft]

It is essential that these groups exist. They are vital to reach the goal of communism. Without them the psuedo leftists and the counter revolutionaries will re-install capitalism very soon after the revolution.
Also they will be needed during the revolution and they can spark of a revolution and get the ball rolling, so to speak.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

I find the notion that morals are abstract reasoning appalling. Tell that to the peasants who just witnessed their friends and family being executed because they were in the fields working for the wrong drug lord (i.e. not in cahoot's with the FARC.) Now they have to flee their village and are displaced.

Have you ever seen the conditions these people live in and the constant fear they suffer? You don't feel for them at all? I don't understand how one can claim do be any type of socialist and not.

I'm not saying the army, paramilitaries and death squads aren't responsible for far more and far bigger atrocities or that they aren't reactionary and US funded. And I know the effects Plan Colombia has had.

I could care less if they kill those who support the AUC, kidnap big oil businessmen or assassinate right-wing politicians but many of their victims are poor people NOT ideological or class enemies. At other times it's someone sitting in their house, walking down the street or in a bar/club that gets blown to pieces when they commit a senselss bombing.

I'd certainly support the guerillas over the US puppet/subservient governments that they are fighting against but they are responsible for their actions which do nothing do further the cause of revolution. The leadership is only concerned with holding it's territory and status. They may have started out claiming to be Marxists but that has little relevance today. They are far away from being any kind of liberation force.

You can be critical of guerillas and still be against US and Colombia policy.

The revolutionary left must stop blindly supporting anything vaguely anti-imperialist and start caring about theory and strategy.

[redstar2000]

Guerrilla Warriors -- "Good Guys" or "Assholes"? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1110072578&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Holocaustpulp]

Guerrillas are only put to good use when they remain moral fighters of the people and not against them. However, guerrilla groups usually alienate themselves and impose their will upon the masses in the name of a now lost socialism.

There are many examples of this. Not only FARC in Colombia that is being mentioned, but also currently the Maoists in Nepal. The Maoists have effectively killed hundreds of civilians and even recently took hostages from a school. This is not socialist behavior, but rather a desecration of it. The Maoist guerrilla movement in Nepal does not represent the workers struggle, and while it is opposing the oppressive monarch, it is doing so with all of the incorrect methods, those of whcih relfect the suppression and imposition of the king himself.

We saw guerrilla movements fail in the past elsewhere in Cambodia, where the peasants began to become afraid of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge after they took power, relocated all city-dwellers into collectives, killed millions, and essentially established themselves as the oligarchy which ruled over the people, not with them. The Viet Kong in support of dictator Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam also had a domineering presence over the people, all of whom had initially supported the communist efforts.

Perhaps the guerrilla method was best implemented by Mao himself. Rallying the peasants with his army and only attacking the nationalist Chinese (those of which opposed the communists) - the Kuomintag - Mao was able to effectively represent the people and coordinate a revolution that reached beyong the bounds of the communist party's main tributaries (i.e., it reached out to the people). One must recognize though that Mao never initially meant to become a totalitarian ruler, and was orginally against bureacucracy in the People's Republic and rather for autonomous communes run by the people.

Mao's teachings thus offer the greatest lesson: always side with the workers and peasants. As many guerrilla insurgencies (many of which I did not mention) did oppose the standing government (and still do) and aimed to oust it in the name of Marxism, they also unrightfully imposed on the workers. Not only is this indeed counterproductive to the cause of rallying the masses as it scares them away from Marxism altogether (even though it's represented by those who have lapsed from their ideals), but it also gives the bougeois authorities - i.e., those that the guerrilla movements is opposing - reason to defame such a movement and to obtain further support for the bourgeois government. If atrocities against common people aren't committed, then the outcome will of course be productive.

Until there is a guerrilla movement that exemplifies this latter aspect, I do not support any guerrillas who morally deviate from and desecrate the founding philosophies of Marxism and leftism.

- Holocaustpulp

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:17 PM
Why does it matter, objectively, if this group that is fighting against a reactionary capitalist government kills civilians or not? Does this mean they no longer "deserve" our support because they're somehow less "morally-correct", or some other abstraction?


Such indifference towards human life is what is wrong with many communists on RevLeft. We work to better the life of the workers. Killing innocent civilians will only worsen the image of the guerillas to the workers and the guerillas will lose much support.

Because of this, they no longer deserve our support as long as they kill anyone in their way. Guilty or not.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:40 AM
That is a very simplistic and superficial view of the role of the state.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is simply the working-class organized as the ruling class.
Simplified yes, superficial not so much.

The only reason you would need a "ruling class" would be to create uniformity and to suppress opposition. This seems to me to be quite the opposite of anything that communism is.

[Lamanov]

If there's no problem - I will quote RedStar2000 (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1110072578&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&):

>>The important part of all that to me is that a victory by Shining Path will be another defeat for U.S. imperialism...advancing the date for a real communist revolution in the United States.

You understand what I&#39;m getting at here? From a communist standpoint, Maoism is crap -- though it will probably serve to develop Peru better than the American quislings that run it now. But Maoism in the "third world" weakens U.S. imperialism...and that&#39;s what really counts&#33;<<

Indeed.

The soul existance of armed revolutionary forces show that that land is going through social war, whatever the character it may have. In the longterm, victory of these "communist" movements can certanly help further development and competition between the burgoise powers... we all know where those two things lead to&#33;

It&#39;s certain that these movements cannot build a soicalist society... BUT they can ADVANCE and DEVELOP the PRESENT, even they turn out to be "evil" [stalinism & maoism]

Fail or win, free or enslave - there&#39;s a good thing in all this... say it with me: progress:

>>Peasants move to cities whenever they can all over the world. As a matter of fact, by the middle of this century, the urban population will become a majority of the world&#39;s total population (if present trends continue).<<

Yes&#33;
------------------------------------------------------------
As I&#39;ve said - guerrilla warfare leads to militarist hierarchies which lead to bonapartism. No question about it. But the future of the class struggle and a REAL socialist/communist revolution is not in jungles, poor villages and swamps, but here, between these concrete walls and on these city streets.

Here, we will be victorious in a REAL sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guerrillas are not an expression of us and our marxist views. They are the expression the struggle in the 3rd world and a nececary element which grew not from ideas but from a harsh reality. In communist sense, we should not support them, and really - we don&#39;t. But in the sense of their importance, we must not look away.

Before socialism, we need proletariat... before proletariat, we need burgoise revolution. It&#39;s not good or bad - it just is.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:35 AM
I don&#39;t know why someone would say groups like the Shining Path would industrialize Peru. They are Maoist-inspired guerilla groups made up of the poorest layer of the peasantry. All such movements are dead ends that lead to petty-bourgeois nationalism not workers&#39; states.
Right. These groups don&#39;t represent some kind of bourgeois revolution either which is what some people on this board seem to be hoping for. There was zero progressive result from the Khmer Rouge or from the Shining Path.

They didn&#39;t harm U.S. imperialism either - in fact the Khmer Rouge ultimately became a tool of the U.S. They harmed working people in those countries.

The whole "anything against U.S. imperialism is good" idea is incredibly bankrupt. No. Anything that advances the consciousness and organization of working people is good. Anything that sets it back is bad.

***

Guerilla warfare is just a tactic, more or less effective in different situations. It&#39;s doesn&#39;t, in and of itself, lead to anything in particular. It doesn&#39;t determine what the post-revoluton regime will be.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

We also shouldn&#39;t forget the number of former rural and urban guerilla leaders of Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Uruguay who today are bourgeois centrist politicians.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:00 PM
Simplified yes, superficial not so much.

The only reason you would need a "ruling class" would be to create uniformity and to suppress opposition. This seems to me to be quite the opposite of anything that communism is.
That&#39;s because the dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism. It is a necessary tool to supress the reactionary forces and lay a basis for socialism, the transition stage to communism.

"As long as the state exists, there will be no freedom; when freedom exists there will be no state." - V.I. Lenin

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:31 PM
Guerilla warfare is just a tactic, more or less effective in different situations. It&#39;s doesn&#39;t, in and of itself, lead to anything in particular. It doesn&#39;t determine what the post-revoluton regime will be.
While I disagree with the large majority of your post, I do whole heartedly agree with this statement.

Frankly, the idea that revolutionaries in the &#39;third world&#39; -- who take to guerrilla warfare as a method of struggle -- should give up and &#39;wait for the industrial nations to make a revolution&#39;, is completely chauvanist (not to mention that it&#39;s meaningless -- the material conditions give life to these revolutions).

"A defeat for imperialism is a victory for working people everywhere.&#39;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
There was zero progressive result from the Khmer Rouge or from the Shining Path.

Well, the Shining Path was largely defeated (at least for the time being).

So the Khmer Rouge is your only real example of a quasi-Maoist rebellion that was victorious and yet also reactionary.

Shit happens&#33; :(

You cannot deny that Maoism led to the development of modern capitalism in China and Vietnam (probably Laos as well...though very limited thus far).

I don&#39;t think you would argue against the idea that such an outcome would be the most probable one in the case of the Philippines or Colombia or Nepal.

I think Cuba also fits into the Maoist paradigm...but the outcome remains disputable.

It would take many more such examples to seriously weaken U.S. imperialism...that much I will grant you. But I think the weight of the examples thus far indicates that Maoism is very good at progressive peasant uprisings that will ultimately modernize those countries (probably at less human cost than imperialism would generate) and also weaken the American Empire.

As long as one does not fall victim to any foolish illusions about "peasant socialism", I see nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting their struggles against the American Empire.

Further, what are the consequences of the opposite course? If you take the position that all the existing resistance to U.S. imperialism is "reactionary", then what conclusion do you invite people to draw other than U.S. imperialism is "better" than its opposition?

You can try to evade that by pointing to your support of the tiny urban working class movements in the "third world" -- which may indeed be much more progressive by our standards than Maoist guerrillas.

But such working class movements that may exist are not "players"...they are too small and too weak to have much of a significant role to play -- except in the final moments when the guerrillas are ready to assault the capital.

Thus while you claim to be "supporting the progressive option", the actual impact of your policy is, at best, one of indifference between U.S. imperialism and its real enemies of the moment.

At worst, people will just conclude that you&#39;re "pro-imperialist" by default.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Paradox]

From the link provided by redstar2000:


What else can you be implying? If the FARC, the ELN, and the SL are all "fucking assholes", then it logically follows you must want them to be defeated...and if they are defeated, then it logically follows that U.S. imperialism wins.

I disagree with this argument that because one is opposed to groups like the Shining Path or FARC, that they "aren&#39;t revolutionaries," and that they&#39;re "in favor of u&#036; imperialism." I realize that the right-wing paramilitaries and government forces backed by the u&#036; are responsible for more, most, deaths. But that does not take away from the fact that these "Communist" groups do similar things.

Let me make myself clear here, I am not against guerrilla activity. What I am against is the murder and repression of innocent people done by these groups in the name of Communism. I realize that guerrilla warfare is dirty, but that dirty activity should be directed at the government forces, i.e. the military and police, as well as the paramilitaries. It should not be used against the people who the group claims to be fighting for. The same "accomplishments" which you say could be achieved by groups such as the Shining Path, could be achieved without the killing and repression of civilians. I mean such gains were made by the Cuban Revolution and they didn&#39;t have to kill people senselessly, murder civilians. Their activity was directed towards those in power, and that&#39;s the way it should be.

As far as "solutions," I don&#39;t know that there are any that could be easily implimented. Groups such as the Shining Path and FARC could revise their tactics and stop this senseless murder of innocent people, but I hardly think that&#39;ll happen. New guerrilla groups could form that focus their violent activities, or rather KEEP their violent attacks against those in power and their forces. But again, the likelihood of such developments is questionable, if not highly improbable.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:08 PM


Well, the Shining Path was largely defeated (at least for the time being).

So the Khmer Rouge is your only real example of a quasi-Maoist rebellion that was victorious and yet also reactionary.


And? Why are other examples excluded from consideration because they lost? Sendero&#39;s character was quite clear to everyone from its actions. It did attack and weaken the workers&#39; and peasants&#39; organizations in Peru. I don&#39;t see how losing makes it better. That&#39;s like saying Jeffrey Dahmer isn&#39;t an example of a serial killer because he got caught.

I don&#39;t expect to see more victorious examples; it was only as part of the Southeast Asia war that the Khmer Rouge were able to win. These petty-bourgeois reactionary sects, forcibly conscripting working people into their crusades, generally cannot show the kind of force that the voluntary self-mobilization of working people can produce. The kind it takes to overthrow capitalist regimes. They don&#39;t represent any basic social class.


You cannot deny that Maoism led to the development of modern capitalism in China and Vietnam (probably Laos as well...though very limited thus far).

I can and do deny it. Maoism, or other kinds of Stalinist bureaucratic misleadership, did not lead to anything progressive. The Chinese Revolution and the creation of a workers state - which occurred despite the Stalinists&#39; incessant efforts to reach an alliance with the Kuomintang - did.

The reactionary, antiworkingclass sects in question have nothing to do with any revolutionary movement resembling the Chinese and Vietnamese Revolutions. Even misleading them.

(Seems to me the contrast between the two kinds of movements illustrates that even misleadership is a kind of leadership of the toilers. The Senderistas do not lead, even mislead; they coerce by terror against working people.)


I don&#39;t think you would argue against the idea that such an outcome would be the most probable one in the case of the Philippines or Colombia or Nepal.

Is there something wrong with your memory? I did argue at length against that idea in the case of Nepal in this recent thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386&st=0&#entry1291864457) Why you&#39;re bringing up the Philippines or Colombia I don&#39;t know. The FARC and NPA may have their own problems, but they&#39;re not usually compared to the Khmer Rouge, Sendero, and Nepalese Maoists. Certainly I don&#39;t think they&#39;re comparable.


I think Cuba also fits into the Maoist paradigm

How? Guerilla warfare? Again, just a tactic.

And, incidentally, not the tactic which finally brought down the capitalist regime in either Cuba or China. As everywhere, the guerilla army must ultimately make the transition either to conventional warfare or urban insurrection, in order to defeat a domestic adversary.

In China, conventional warfare with urban workers&#39; actions discouraged; in Cuba, urban insurrection and general strike.


But I think the weight of the examples thus far indicates that Maoism is very good at progressive peasant uprisings that will ultimately modernize those countries (probably at less human cost than imperialism would generate) and also weaken the American Empire.

Actually, there&#39;s only one Maoist-led revolution, which occurred in exceptional circumstances coming out of WWII. You&#39;re drawing a lot of conclusions from one example.

Heck, almost all the Stalinist-led overthrows of capitalism, from east Germany to north Korea, occurred in the aftermath of that war. The only exception is southeast Asia, and the Viet Minh and their fight against a succession of imperialist powers did begin during WWII and continue with pauses thereafter.

After that, all revolutionary overthrows of capitalist rule have been led by non-Stalinist forces. Cuba, Algeria, Nicaragua, Grenada, Burkina Faso. That shouldn&#39;t be a surprise given the counterrevolutionary, socialdemocracy-like role of Stalinism. The anomaly was Stalinism briefly seeming to play another role.

Today, with Stalinism greatly weakened and deprived of all state sponsorship - always its main source of strength - there&#39;s less reason than ever to expect it to lead anything.


But such working class movements that may exist are not "players"...they are too small and too weak to have much of a significant role to play -- except in the final moments when the guerrillas are ready to assault the capital.

Hello? Have you been following the news from Bolivia lately? And that&#39;s just the latest example of the mass struggles that have wracked Latin America over the past several years. Struggles by peasants as well as workers, both consciously fighting for their interests and beginning to reach out towards taking power into their own hands...not cannon fodder for a reactionary guerilla group which uses violence and intimidation to compel their support.

Really that statement says much more about you than about the world - you don&#39;t believe for a second in the power of working people.

There is no substitute for the working class.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:54 PM
That&#39;s because the dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism. It is a necessary tool to supress the reactionary forces and lay a basis for socialism, the transition stage to communism.

"As long as the state exists, there will be no freedom; when freedom exists there will be no state." - V.I. Lenin
Suppression is something that leads to a forced society not a free one. And suppression is very much like denial in that it doesn&#39;t deal with the issues at hand, instead it merely covers them up and leaves things unsettled which like an untreated sore will only keep on hurting.

Your entire concept that the state will fix all and that you can supress and force a society into communism is essentially false. Power is like capital, it&#39;s easily manipulable.

Okay, simile time is over now ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
I don&#39;t expect to see more victorious examples [of Maoism]

:unsure:

Your faith in American military might is considerably greater than mine...but you certainly have a right to your pessimism in this regard.

But then who will fight imperialist domination in the "third world"?

You&#39;ve said elsewhere that you reject the idea of a "progressive bourgeoisie" in those countries...so they can&#39;t do it.

The urban working class in those countries is in the minority...in some of them, a tiny minority. The seizure of power by a Leninist party rooted in the working class is obviously not impossible...it happened in Russia, after all.

But unless it can muster wide-spread support among the peasantry, I don&#39;t think it could withstand American pressure for very long.

(The Maoists start out by gaining the support of the peasantry first.)

You cite the example of Bolivia. But nothing has really happened yet. If civil war breaks out and the usual radicalization follows, then you may have a "model" to work with...something you can realistically argue is a genuine and superior alternative to Maoism in the "third world".

And that&#39;s fine with me. If a more effective form of resistance to U.S. imperialism is emerging in Bolivia and spreads to other parts of the Empire, I will be delighted to support it.

Without illusions&#33; Modern capitalism is the "next stage" for Bolivia and the rest of the Andean countries...and that&#39;s what will ultimately happen no matter what path is followed.

Which is all that I have maintained in these various controversies, after all. If you and others want to piss and moan that the Maoists are "not nice", fine. What I see is that they are in the field of armed struggle against U.S. imperialism...and that makes them objectively progressive at this time.

(Just as the Iraqi resistance is objectively progressive at this time.)

Later on, who knows? A Maoist group that goes off in the direction that the Khmer Rouge did would certainly be considered reactionary. You would presumably argue that Shining Path "would have done that"...and likewise the Nepalese Maoists "will do that" if they come to power.

I disagree...I think they would modernize their respective countries just as the Chinese, the Vietnamese, and the Cubans have done -- preparing them for their role as modern capitalist countries.

Just as Chavez is doing in a very different way.

I am not "picky" like you and others here; I don&#39;t care how the "third world" countries break the strangle-hold of the American Empire.

I just care that they do it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Holocaustpulp]

RedStar argues that any guerrilla movement against US imperialism is a good one, and the only negative thing he attributes to such guerrillas is them being "not nice".

That&#39;s sad, actually, for RedStar mentions in his argument the role of Nepalese Maoists being able to reform their nation (one of the poorest in the world) even though they have forced peasants to make concessions to them and killed off hundreds. Indeed this is not nice - it is moreso regressive.

As I mentioned in my earlier statement, the ruthlessness of such guerrilla movements - despite the fact that they are indeed opposing the imperialists - does not take in account that bourgeois imperialists will use their human-rights violations against their cause and deteriorate international support and sympathy; the actions of the guerrillas themselves are usually enough to scare aware the actual masses.

As a form of appeal, guerrillas should prove themselves better than the imperialists by not harming the people they wish to serve, by not committing imposing measures, and essentially by only harming the government. This way the guerrillas would effectively promote the revolutionary struggle while defying the imperialists, indeed a productive platform. To advise against this prolongs revolution longer than needed and ultimately poisons the revolutionary struggle.

- Holocaustpulp

[emisarre]

Originally posted by Colombia+Jun 8 2005, 03:44 PM--> (Colombia @ Jun 8 2005, 03:44 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 01:17 PM
Why does it matter, objectively, if this group that is fighting against a reactionary capitalist government kills civilians or not? Does this mean they no longer "deserve" our support because they&#39;re somehow less "morally-correct", or some other abstraction?


Such indifference towards human life is what is wrong with many communists on RevLeft. We work to better the life of the workers. Killing innocent civilians will only worsen the image of the guerillas to the workers and the guerillas will lose much support.

Because of this, they no longer deserve our support as long as they kill anyone in their way. Guilty or not. [/b]
No, the biggest problem on Revolutionary Left and the Left in general is sectarianism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Holocaustpulp
As I mentioned in my earlier statement, the ruthlessness of such guerrilla movements - despite the fact that they are indeed opposing the imperialists - does not take in account that bourgeois imperialists will use their human-rights violations against their cause and deteriorate international support and sympathy; the actions of the guerrillas themselves are usually enough to scare aware the actual masses.

Perhaps this is what happened with the Shining Path...I do not know.

I am pretty certain that guerrillas don&#39;t care that much one way or the other about "international support and sympathy" -- they are fighting an armed enemy after all.

They must defeat that enemy militarily. Presumably they choose methods which in their own best judgment are most suitable for accomplishing the defeat of their enemies.

You may, if you wish, remonstrate with them about their tactical choices and point out that you "would do it differently". There&#39;s nothing wrong with that.

But when you take the side of the imperialists -- or word your criticisms in such a way as to give that impression -- then you&#39;ve crossed the line into the ranks of the enemy.

"Leftists" who support imperialism are not leftists.

They are scabs.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 9 2005, 10:30 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Jun 9 2005, 10:30 AM)
Severian
I don&#39;t expect to see more victorious examples [of Maoism] [/b]
No, of Khmer Rouge-like groups. And in other ways you&#39;re misrepresenting my points. I won&#39;t repeat myself, though, since anyone can scroll back and see what I actually wrote.

I will point out that you&#39;re constantly assuming the thing you have to prove: the correctness of your starting point that anything against Washington is good. As opposed to the Marxist view, that anything that aids the increasing consciousness and self-organization of working people is good.

Your conclusions are logical enough, from your starting point. But that just helps emphasize the complete rottenness of that starting point.

What&#39;s more, if you were to draw all the logical conclusions from it, you&#39;d have to endorse, not just the Nepalese Maoists and Iraqi Ba&#39;athists, but al-Qaeda and September 11...and most of all, the Paris-Berlin imperialist alliance, Washington&#39;s chief rival.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

The list is endless...Nazis, Kim Jong-Il, Mugabe, Iran etc.

They aren&#39;t/weren&#39;t good for US imperialism either.

Supporting this collection of fascists, Stalinists, nationalists and fundamentalists is the mentality of philistines such as the ones you can find at KKKomradeKKKhe.com

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:50 AM
"Leftists" who support imperialism are not leftists.
They are scabs.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
So then what do you call supporters of guerillas who kill the very people they are trying to defend?

I call them blinded ideologists.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Now you&#39;ve presented an enigma, Colombia.

Anti-anti-anti-imperialist leftists, perhaps?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:08 AM
>>Without illusions&#33; Modern capitalism is the "next stage" for Bolivia and the rest of the Andean countries...and that&#39;s what will ultimately happen no matter what path is followed.<<
True that.

There is a "good" historic example or guerilla warfare, and it&#39;s former Yugoslavia [1943-1991]. There [here] seisure of power by the "Communist" party introduced planned economy which turned a 90% peasant land into world industrial "average".
BUT, this state capitalism played a crippling role for the worker internationalism and communism in its true form.

It is nececary that this "next stage" is reached soon. But there&#39;s a question:
which way is better ?? we have 2 choices:

1) state capitalism which makes a speedy economic progres BUT in the same time creates 1- isolation, 2- very young, passive and uncounscience proletarian mass in these countries,

or

2) private capitalism under US domination which creates slow progress, slow BUT effective, and creates a very conscience urban mass, very unsatisfied, besides a very socially "satisfied" [and unconscience] proletariat ONLY in the US.

That&#39;s why I&#39;m questioning this:


>>(Just as the Iraqi resistance is objectively progressive at this time.)<<

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
I will point out that you&#39;re constantly assuming the thing you have to prove: the correctness of your starting point that anything against Washington is good. As opposed to the Marxist view, that anything that aids the increasing consciousness and self-organization of working people is good.

What single change would do more to "increase the consciousness and self-organization of working people" around the world as well as at home other than the massive defeat of U.S. imperialism everywhere?

What single concentration of economic and military power does far more to intransigently oppose the "increase of counsciousness and self-organization of working people" all over the world than all others put together?

Sure, Chinese imperialism is reactionary. Sure, French and German imperialism are both reactionary. Sure, the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and elsewhere are reactionary...as are the Zionist expansionists, the Mugabe regime in Africa, and so on, and so on, and so on.

The planet is full of reactionaries...big and small.

Who is "the big dog"? Who stands up for reaction everywhere? Who is, in a phrase similar to that used by Marx himself, the fortress of world reaction?

And who, if not American Marxists, should be most opposed to both the dream and the practice of "our own" Empire?

You want to "cherry pick" from the global struggle against U.S. tyranny -- pick out the groups that you find abstractly "progressive" from some Olympian height.

That&#39;s your privilege...in the oppressed and exploited countries of the world, people don&#39;t get many choices like that.

In the "inexplicable absence" of benevolent Trotskyist guidance, they must often choose between an unsavory local resistance and submitting to continuing imperialist despotism.

And you imply strongly that they "should" and even "will" submit.

Because, after all, those Maoists are just "murderous thugs" and those Iraqis are "Sunni supremacists" and...

And it logically follows that U.S. imperialism is "not as bad".

Face it: your real advice to the rest of the planet is "Wait for Leon; he will return to set things on the right course again."


Your conclusions are logical enough, from your starting point. But that just helps emphasize the complete rottenness of that starting point.

I don&#39;t think you&#39;re in any position to draw attention to the "rottenness" of others at this point.

You&#39;re only a few verbal steps -- and small ones at that -- from supporting U.S. imperialism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Paradox]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36449



What is critically missing in Bolivia in this very important hour is a leadership like the Bolsheviks of 1917 Russia that could put forth a clear program for socialist revolution and do battle with MAS leadership to win over the rank and file to the side of the working class.



Come now. I&#39;ll bet, sight unseen, that there are at least a dozen Leninist parties in Bolivia scrambling around to get "out in front" of the struggle.

They&#39;re just no damn good at it, that&#39;s all...just wannabe despots that the masses quite properly ignore.

Would this not be a contradiction, redstar? Just "wannabe despots?" Is that not what these guerrilla groups you so wholeheartedly support are? Would not these Leninists do the same things that the Maoist guerrillas would do? Help industrialize their nations and bring us closer to real Communist revolution? And yet, you say that the masses ignore these Leninist groups "quite properly." Well, perhaps the masses "quite properly" ignore brutal guerrilla forces because these groups kill and repress the very people they claim to be fighting for. How are these groups not just a bunch of "wannabe despots?" They will both accomplish the same things, will they not? How can you support one and not support the other? They&#39;re both fake Communist groups, but they&#39;ll both "bring us closer" to a real Communist movement. So what&#39;s the difference... other than that the Leninist groups in Bolivia are probably not killing off civilians like the Shining Path?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:58 PM
What single change would do more to "increase the consciousness and self-organization of working people" around the world as well as at home other than the massive defeat of U.S. imperialism everywhere?
See, there you&#39;re deriving opposition to U.S. imperialism from the need to advance the workers&#39; struggle. I agree there.

But in your usual reasoning, it becomes a be-all and end-all, a starting point. Anti-Americanism overrides everything else. You forget your original starting point, and are even willing to go against it for the sake of anti-Americanism.

With many other examples of this phenom, it&#39;s not even anti-American...it&#39;s just anti-Bush.

***

There is no revolutionary party in Bolivia, I&#39;d be willing to put money on that. Just because a party calls itself Leninist, doesn&#39;t mean it bears any resemblance to Lenin&#39;s party. In all these mass upsurges in Latin America, a tremendous vacuum of leadership has been apparent. The parties have largely been irrelevant...when a revolutionary party is present, it&#39;s anything but that. Even a small one can have a significant impact on events.

Paradox asks a good question, and I think the answer is that opposition to Lenin&#39;s concept of the party really does not usually have anything to do with anti-authoritarianism, despite the rhetoric. It&#39;s all about opposing working people taking power. As Redstar fairly explicitly does; he wants a bourgeois revolution, which is a fantasy in the world today.

There are and can be no bourgeois revolutionaries today, so Redstar can&#39;t find any. He won&#39;t give up looking, though, and eventually seizes on all kinds of reactionary groups to fill the job.

[Lamanov]

I think this discussion took a dead end street. Obviously, you guys are discussing each other but neither argumentation will change anything. Support it or not, they have 1% chance of succes anyway. I think I&#39;m right when I say that we all agree that these movements are not communist, they are not a vanguard in front of the working class, and that the result of their struggle will not be a construction of the dictatureship of the proletariat.
Further on, I think most of us argree that that&#39;s not a marxist approach anyway, and that struggle we would practicize is much different in methods, environment [revolutionary ground], and goals.
Let&#39;s just drop it. -_-

:hammer: :cool:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What I said earlier clearly still applies and has gone largely unaddressed


Frankly, the idea that revolutionaries in the &#39;third world&#39; -- who take to guerrilla warfare as a method of struggle -- should give up and &#39;wait for the industrial nations to make a revolution&#39;, is completely chauvanist (not to mention that it&#39;s meaningless -- the material conditions give life to these revolutions).

"A defeat for imperialism is a victory for working people everywhere.&#39;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:27 PM
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36449



What is critically missing in Bolivia in this very important hour is a leadership like the Bolsheviks of 1917 Russia that could put forth a clear program for socialist revolution and do battle with MAS leadership to win over the rank and file to the side of the working class.



Come now. I&#39;ll bet, sight unseen, that there are at least a dozen Leninist parties in Bolivia scrambling around to get "out in front" of the struggle.

They&#39;re just no damn good at it, that&#39;s all...just wannabe despots that the masses quite properly ignore.

Would this not be a contradiction, redstar? Just "wannabe despots?" Is that not what these guerrilla groups you so wholeheartedly support are? Would not these Leninists do the same things that the Maoist guerrillas would do? Help industrialize their nations and bring us closer to real Communist revolution? And yet, you say that the masses ignore these Leninist groups "quite properly." Well, perhaps the masses "quite properly" ignore brutal guerrilla forces because these groups kill and repress the very people they claim to be fighting for. How are these groups not just a bunch of "wannabe despots?" They will both accomplish the same things, will they not? How can you support one and not support the other? They&#39;re both fake Communist groups, but they&#39;ll both "bring us closer" to a real Communist movement. So what&#39;s the difference... other than that the Leninist groups in Bolivia are probably not killing off civilians like the Shining Path?
Good question, Paradox&#33;

I suppose I am being "unfair" to the assorted Leninist parties in Bolivia...but none of them have actually launched an armed struggle against the puppet regime.

In other words, none of them have done more than clamor for recognition of their "correct leadership".

If one of them "picks up the gun" and begins an actual insurrection, that changes the picture entirely.

True, they&#39;d still be wanna-be despots -- but now their despotism would potentially overturn the despotism of imperialism.

That would be something that the Bolivarian masses would not ignore...or would be mistaken if they did ignore.

After all, Bolivia (like any other neo-colony) has a large supply of potential quislings...politicians that can be slotted into office, removed when totally discredited, and replaced with "new faces" that are just as bad.

None of the political forces thus far revealed in Bolivia offers the "revolutionary option" -- an end to Bolivia&#39;s status as a neo-colony.

If some Maoist-inspired (or Guevara-inspired) group emerges to offer that option, I will support them.

And I will continue to do so even though the quisling regime in La Paz and the American bourgeois media, etc., accuse them of "horrible atrocities".

I already know that U.S. imperialism in its daily "peaceful" functioning is far more atrocious.

You should know that too.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:51 PM
What I said earlier clearly still applies and has gone largely unaddressed


Frankly, the idea that revolutionaries in the &#39;third world&#39; -- who take to guerrilla warfare as a method of struggle -- should give up and &#39;wait for the industrial nations to make a revolution&#39;, is completely chauvanist (not to mention that it&#39;s meaningless -- the material conditions give life to these revolutions).
I agree. Its especially chauvinist to insist on complete "anti-authoritarianism" in the First World, while holding that the most obscurantist, thought-controlling, reactionary leaderships are most appropriate for the unwashed masses of the Third World - who, furthermore, can only have bourgeois revolutions. Both sides of that position have something in common, though: an opposition to working people taking power into our own hands, except maybe at some indefinite future time - which will continually recede.


"A defeat for imperialism is a victory for working people everywhere.&#39;

Was the defeat of French imperialism by Nazi imperialism a victory for working people everywhere?

It&#39;s what your for, not what you&#39;re against, that&#39;s decisive.

Redstar:

If one of them "picks up the gun" and begins an actual insurrection, that changes the picture entirely.

More fetishizing a tactic.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

by that phrase, though I know it is taken out of context, what&#39;s meant is a defeat of the leading imperialist power (the US) which is the &#39;head quarters&#39; of capitalism.

but also, if im not mistaken comrade severian you are a member of the SWP, and if im also not mistaken the SWP supported the Iran Islamic "Revolution" -- so the obvious question would be: was that a victory for working people everywhere? or anywhere...

[Severian]

And? Would the defeat of U.S. imperialism by German and Japanese imperialism have been a victory of working people everywhere? Would the defeat of U.S. imperialism by the current Franco-German axis be...etc?

(Improbable I know, but more plausible than its defeat by some Third World bougeoisie, let alone a reactionary Stalinist sect conducting terror against the workers and peasants.)

That&#39;s why I keep saying "anti-American" rather than "anti-imperialist" - if you&#39;re only oppposed to one imperialism, that&#39;s not really opposition to imperialism. What&#39;s more, it can easily be support to some other imperialism.

No, a victory for working people anywhere is a victory for working people everywhere. It&#39;s what you&#39;re for, not who you&#39;re against. Heck, RedSkinhead is right that the logic of anti-Americanism at all costs even implies unity with neo-Nazis...they&#39;re also opposed to the "Zionist Occupied Government."

***

I support and used to belong to the SWP (the one in the US), yes. And we supported the Iranian Revolution despite the religious form it took, yes. It was a victory for working people in Iran and everywhere, first of all the millions who participated in it. Despite the failure of the workers and peasants to take power, and the eventual consolidation of a reactionary capitalist regime, there&#39;s still more political space for workers to discuss and organize than before the revolution, as well as social and economic improvements. The revolution also gave an impetus to progressive struggles throughout the region and the world.

"I have no love for the idealized image of the worker as he appears in Communist propaganda, but when I see a flesh-and-blood worker fighting with his natural enemy, a policeman, I don&#39;t have to ask myself which side I&#39;m on." as George Orwell said about the Barcelona uprising.

That class instinct, or the lack of it, is a major factor behind the differences discussed in this thread IMO....

"They say in Harlan County, that there are no neutrals there, you either are a union man, or a thug for J.H. Blair"....like Redstar, working-class fighters always opposed fence-sitting and said its ultimately a fake and a fraud, that those who practice it turn out to be neutral on the side of the bosses.

But we&#39;ve always said that you have to take sides between the workers and the bosses, in the class war. While Redstar, in contrast, insists that you have to take sides between one gang of capitalists and others. That&#39;s not in any revolutionary working-class tradition...that&#39;s in the tradition of those who said you have to choose between Allies and Central Powers. "You either are a thug for Consol Coal, or a thug for J.H. Blair", maybe? Not quite as catchy.

[Holocaustpulp]

RedStar2000: "I am pretty certain that guerrillas don&#39;t care that much one way or the other about &#39;international support and sympathy&#39; -- they are fighting an armed enemy after all."

Their also fighting those that are un-armed, the same people that are supposed to provide the base for such guerrilla movements.

"They must defeat that enemy militarily. Presumably they choose methods which in their own best judgment are most suitable for accomplishing the defeat of their enemies."

I have no problem with violence against the oppressors - I&#39;m just stating as a trend such guerrilla movements betray their social base and "defeat" the masses "militarily."

"But when you take the side of the imperialists -- or word your criticisms in such a way as to give that impression -- then you&#39;ve crossed the line into the ranks of the enemy."

I don&#39;t take the side of the imperialists - I am merely voicing logic. It is not logical and indeed anti-leftist to repress the lower-class while battling the state; this does not denote a functioning movement, but rather a corrupt one. This is why the guerrilla movement needs to be ethical in terms of leftism, and overseen and guided by an organization that does not have its central base also in such a movement.

Or is killing the capitalistically exploited (i.e., the proletariat and peasantry, the foundation of revolutionary movements) all fun and dandy and irrelevant in leftist discussion?

" &#39;Leftists&#39; who support imperialism are not leftists."

I agree. Likewise, &#39;leftists&#39; who condone anti-leftist policies are definitely not leftists.

- HP

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Holocaustpulp+--> (Holocaustpulp)I have no problem with violence against the oppressors - I&#39;m just stating as a trend such guerrilla movements betray their social base and "defeat" the masses "militarily."[/b]

Oh they "do", do they?

Where&#39;d that idea come from?

Well, the Nation (bourgeois liberal magazine in the U.S.) said so.

And The New York Times agreed.

A whole host of NGO&#39;s jumped in on the same side.

Gosh...it must be true&#33;

The guerrillas are "fucking assholes". :angry:

So our position is...fuck those bastards&#33;

And, um, er, two-and-a-half cheers for U.S. imperialism and their quisling regimes??? :huh:

As Severian so glibly put it -- "it&#39;s what you&#39;re for" that counts.

So if you want those guerrillas ("fucking bastards") defeated, you know who you have to turn to, right?

Your choice.


Severian
Would the defeat of U.S. imperialism by German and Japanese imperialism have been a victory of working people everywhere?

It was widely understood (on the left) from the early 1930s that German and Japanese imperialism were, by far, the most reactionary enemies of the international working class at that time.

After 1945, things changed. It was American imperialism that assumed the role of the most reactionary enemy of the international working class and, indeed, of ordinary people in every country.

Even just to list the predatory moves of U.S. imperialism would make a very long post...and their atrocities an even longer one.

The French are probably in a distant 2nd place and the British and the Russians are fighting it out for 3rd place...but all three put together are hardly even in the same league with the United States.

Severian and the other western critics of guerrilla movements constantly avoid this truth...they prefer to measure the guerrillas by some abstract moral standard that is completely disconnected from the daily reality of American imperialist domination.

If Shining Path shoots a priest, that&#39;s "terrible". If the priest tells his congregation that birth control is immoral and many babies are born whose only fate is starvation...that&#39;s "peaceful" and just "freedom of religion".

If the Nepalese Maoists publicly execute a village chief that supports the monarchy, that&#39;s "terrible". If the village chief cheerfully presides over the worst caste system in the world, that&#39;s "peaceful" and just "freedom of religion".

If an Iraqi suicide-bomber blows up a bunch of civilians standing in line to join the quisling police force, that&#39;s "terrible".

If the U.S. Air Force bombs the crap out of a rural wedding, that&#39;s...well, a regrettable error???

What are you going to label the atrocities of the side that you support?

Collateral damage???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Holocaustpulp]

RedStar: You don&#39;t get it. The guerrillas betray the entire lower-class, and don&#39;t harm a selected few who support the oppressor or regressive measures (the latter wouldn&#39;t be betraying their base anyway, now would it?). Guerrillas in most instances harm peasants of all types, the proletarians of all types, the petty-bourgeois of all types, the bourgeois of all types.

This is regressive. It was Lenin who told us that the socialist movement must bring the sufferings of all class under the socialist party banner - it is guerrilla movements that help to create such strife and push (not give incentive) people away from the leftist cause.

It is a matter of betraying the true objective by substituting the cause with the guerrilla movement; they become two separate entities.

You&#39;re only defense is to lable me as a bourgeois fake (which I am not). This is lamentable indeed, because you neglect to see the truth behind these movements by blinding yourself with the superficial cause of the guerrillas, and not their effects.

- Holocaustpulp

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:24 PM

Well, the Nation (bourgeois liberal magazine in the U.S.) said so.

And The New York Times agreed.

A whole host of NGO&#39;s jumped in on the same side.

Gosh...it must be true&#33;
In other words, almost everyone on earth says the Nepalese Maoists are carrying out terrorism against working people. This proves that almost everyone is in the service of the Great Satan to slander the true faith. I get this kind of "reasoning" a lot from RCPers, too.

[JC1]

What can be said to dismiss the reveloutionary movement in Nepal ? They Kill people ? thats true , but Gurrilaism is whats the order of the day in Nepal. Reveloution is hardly a pretty thang , get over yourselves. Ends justify Means.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:24 PM
It was widely understood (on the left) from the early 1930s that German and Japanese imperialism were, by far, the most reactionary enemies of the international working class at that time.

After 1945, things changed. It was American imperialism that assumed the role of the most reactionary enemy of the international working class and, indeed, of ordinary people in every country.
Actually, no. During the 1930s and 1940s, what was "widely understood" by 90% or more of the left was....whatever the Kremlin said. Not only the large Communist Parties, but their vast peripheries of sympathizers and fellow-travellers.

Your statement is not accurate from 1939 through mid-1941, during the Stalin-Hitler pact, for example. During that time it was "widely understood" that the Allies were the most reactionary.

During the Popular Front period before that pact, and after Hitler invaded the USSR, your statement becomes accurate. And as you suggest, it was "widely understood" that in order to defeat the "the most reactionary enemies of the international working class" (really, of the workers&#39; motherland) then of course you had to support everyone who was fighting them.

But Redstar makes an interesting parallel. Let&#39;s look at what was done during that period, when "the left" adopted the attitude towards German imperialism, which he suggests should be adopted towards U.S. imperialism today.

For example, what if you refused to support everyone who happened to be fighting the "most reactionary enemies of the international working class."? Well, then you were on the other side. Agents of Hitler. Gotta pick one side or the other, as Redstar explains.

It was considered necessary to support anyone who was fighting the "most reactionary enemies of the international working class." Starting with the "democratic" imperialists. Including the Spanish Republic&#39;s suppression of the Barcelona uprising and the revolutionary workers. They were considered to be objectively supporting the "the most reactionary enemies of the international working class", just as Redstar suggests I am.

This reached even greater depths during WWII: the Communist Party USA expelled its Japanese and Japanese-American members, and supported their confinement to concentration camps. It recruited strikebreakers against the coal miners&#39; strike during the war....everything else has to be subordinated to defeating the "the most reactionary enemies of the international working class", y&#39;know. As for anyone who would stick to a Leninist policy of opposing all imperialist wars by any imperialist power...obviously if they didn&#39;t support one side, they were on the other. Agents of Hitler&#33; Lock &#39;em up&#33;Some more about this course which was "widely understood (on the left)". (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6916/691650.html)

I don&#39;t need to make excuses for atrocities...but what do you call the atrocities of the side you support, Redstar? Great victories for working people everywhere? That&#39;s how the annihilation of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and large parts of Tokyo and Hamburg were "widely understood (on the left)". These bombings deliberately targeted the working-class neighborhoods of these cities with the stated aim of killing and "dehousing" as many industrial workers as possible.The firebombing of Hamburg and its goals (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6921/692150.html) More links on that page about WWII and the revolutionary movement.

All logical enough, once you accept that anyone who&#39;s not on one side is on the other, and the only thing that matters is the defeat of the "the most reactionary enemies of the international working class." (Again, in reality, whoever was the main enemy of the USSR at the moment.)

It&#39;s also untrue, BTW, that the U.S. was identified as the "most reactionary enemy" in 1945...that was the year the Yalta conference happened, where the world was redivided, and Stalin agreed to help in pacifying resistance groups, national liberation movements, and uppity workers everywhere, so his allies could regain and re-consolidate control over their states and empires. As late as 1946, the Viet Minh were welcoming French troops landing to retake control of Vietnam. Hopefully I don&#39;t need to belabor the consequences of that decision for the population of Vietnam.
More about Yalta (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6922/692256.html)

Despite the zigzags involved, as one or another gang of capitalists is identified as "most reactionary" and the others therefore as worthy of support, there&#39;s still a certain consistency to this policy.

If you don&#39;t have an orientation towards working people taking power into our own hands, it even makes sense. Whether you reject that orientation openly, or just don&#39;t take it as a practical basis for action today. The only "realistic" options then seem to be one or another group of capitalists...so of course the seemingly lesser evil must be backed to the hilt. No matter what the betrayals and atrocities this course requires.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:00 PM
RedStar: You don&#39;t get it. The guerrillas betray the entire lower-class, and don&#39;t harm a selected few who support the oppressor or regressive measures (the latter wouldn&#39;t be betraying their base anyway, now would it?). Guerrillas in most instances harm peasants of all types, the proletarians of all types, the petty-bourgeois of all types, the bourgeois of all types.

This is regressive. It was Lenin who told us that the socialist movement must bring the sufferings of all class under the socialist party banner - it is guerrilla movements that help to create such strife and push (not give incentive) people away from the leftist cause.

It is a matter of betraying the true objective by substituting the cause with the guerrilla movement; they become two separate entities.

You&#39;re only defense is to lable me as a bourgeois fake (which I am not). This is lamentable indeed, because you neglect to see the truth behind these movements by blinding yourself with the superficial cause of the guerrillas, and not their effects.

- Holocaustpulp
HP, are you saying you oppose guerrilla warfare in general, or do you simply oppose these secific guerrillas? It seems to me that guerrilla warfare is a the prime weapon of revolutionaries around the world. As for &#39;how&#39; guerrilla warfare should be fought, I agree with you entirely that guerrilla groups should never betray the lower class by slaughtering them...certainly not. Instead, we should turn to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara for an indication as to how guerrilla warfare should be fought. The objective should be to gather alliances, not create many enemies. Castro was the master of this art. But this leads to my question, are these guerrillas we&#39;re talking about really just slaughtering everyone, as HP says?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Holocaustpulp+--> (Holocaustpulp)RedStar: You don&#39;t get it.[/b]

I sure don&#39;t&#33; I&#39;m continually astonished at the people who piss and moan endlessly about guerrilla "atrocities" while refusing to acknowledge the far greater atrocities of U.S. imperialism and its quislings.

Would you like "perfect guerrillas" who are "without sin"? Gee, me too.

Do you know of any?

I don&#39;t.

Now what?


Severian
In other words, almost everyone on earth says the Nepalese Maoists are carrying out terrorism against working people.

At least "everyone on earth" with access to the bourgeois media.

Most of them also add (in a footnote at the bottom of page 57) that the monarchy is far worse.

Now what?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:59 PM
HP, are you saying you oppose guerrilla warfare in general, or do you simply oppose these secific guerrillas? It seems to me that guerrilla warfare is a the prime weapon of revolutionaries around the world. As for &#39;how&#39; guerrilla warfare should be fought, I agree with you entirely that guerrilla groups should never betray the lower class by slaughtering them...certainly not. Instead, we should turn to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara for an indication as to how guerrilla warfare should be fought. The objective should be to gather alliances, not create many enemies. Castro was the master of this art.
Good points. I hadn&#39;t been reading HP&#39;s posts very closely, and hadn&#39;t noticed the statements about guerilla warfare generally.

The Cuban revolution, and guerilla groups influenced by it, have acted very differently. Even Stalinist-led guerilla armies have. Because they&#39;re seeking to win the voluntary support of the peasants and other working people, they try hard to avoid harming their base of potential supporters - Mao&#39;s famous rules on "not taking a thread from the people" really were enforced - I won&#39;t say they were never broken, but there was a real attempt to enforce them. In most cases, guerilla warfare - if it reaches a large scale, anyway - is a form of the class struggle by working people.


But this leads to my question, are these guerrillas we&#39;re talking about really just slaughtering everyone, as HP says?

I&#39;ve posted a fair bit of evidence to that effect, in this thread and this Nepal thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35386&st=0&#entry1291864457) Here&#39;s a good article about Sendero which explains some of its concrete actions and general character. (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.activism.progressive/browse_thread/thread/3cf1967e1c0d0b2c/8fe43e8bb0e1ca45?q=%22Martin+Koppel%22+sendero&rnum=2#8fe43e8bb0e1ca45)

Nobody&#39;s made any serious effort to refute any of it, other than refusing to believe anything that appears in the bourgeois media - on this one topic - or from human rights groups, or from the workers&#39; parties and organizations in Nepal. This has more to do with psychological denial than any method of attempting to determine the truth.

JC1&#39;s response is really fairly typical: They kill people? So what. Which of course evades the whole point, that the CPN(M) and Sendero are conducting terror against working people and the workers&#39; organizations. I&#39;d really welcome a response which actually deals with the main point. I haven&#39;t seen one so far, in any thread.

Redstar just admits that almost everyone on earth accepts this as true. Really, Redstar doesn&#39;t so much deny the actions of Sendero and the CPN(M) as not care, any more than he cares about the car bombings conducted by the Iraqi resistance against Shi&#39;a civilians. As long as they&#39;re anti-American, nothing else matters.

I think he&#39;s mistaken in saying that most people think the monarchy is worse. It may in fact be worse, but that doesn&#39;t seem to be a widespread conclusion, in particular not by any of the workers&#39; parties in Nepal.

For my part, I don&#39;t much care for determining who is the "lesser evil" - for reasons I explained in my last post, using the example of WWII. IMO the complex tactical challenge facing workers organizations in Nepal is how to defend themselves from terror conducted by both contending sides, while attempting to build the consciousness and organization of working people to the point where they become a contender for power themselves. It&#39;s also necessary to recognize that the two sides strengthen each other, are able to justify their actions and gain popular support based on each other&#39;s atrocities. Fujimori didn&#39;t last long after the Shining Path disintegrated from within.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
I think he&#39;s mistaken in saying that most people think the monarchy is worse. It may in fact be worse, but that doesn&#39;t seem to be a widespread conclusion, in particular not by any of the workers&#39; parties in Nepal.

We close in, slowly but surely, on the heart of the matter.

Now be honest here, Severian, and please answer the questions.

Is it your wish that the Nepalese monarchy successfully defeat the Nepalese Maoists?

Is it your wish that the American occupation forces and their quisling regime successfully defeat the Iraqi resistance?

Are you satisfied that the American-backed Fujimori regime in Peru defeated the Shining Path?

If you genuinely think that the guerrilla movements in those particular countries are hopelessly reactionary enemies of the workers and peasants, then you should have no problem with those questions.

You should be able to say "with a clear conscience" that "the American alternative is better".

But will you come right out and say it?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Like I just said, I&#39;m not interested in who&#39;s the lesser evil. That is not in fact the heart of the matter; the central question is lesser-evillism vs the line of march of the working class towards power. If you accept lesser-evillism, it&#39;s easy enough to switch back and forth on who&#39;s worse; as the WWII example shows.

One might conclude, as I did, based on information available during the fighting, that the Peruvian army was more murderous; once the dust settled the Truth Commission, at least, found that Sendero&#39;s body count was higher. This, however, is like debating whether Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer is better.

Your last question contains a questionable premise BTW; was Sendero more defeated by Fujimori or disintegrated internally?

I do get a certain "satisfaction" from the fact that the workers&#39; organizations in Peru are still there and still a factor in the situation - though Peru hasn&#39;t seen the kind of mass upsurge that&#39;s occurred in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina - while Fujimori is a fugitive and "Chairman Gonzalo" is in jail. Apparently banking on the working class proved to be more realistic than banking on either Fujimori or Sendero.

Edit: occurs to me this response is too general - one of these things is not like the others. For a number of reasons - but the one with changes the response to the question is the role of direct imperialist military intervention. If the Iraqi resistance - or any other factor - forces a U.S. withdrawal, of course I&#39;ll be happy to see that.

[The Z-Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:04 AM
If you decentralized power in the guerilla movements you may be able to eliminate post-revolution centralization.
Exactly.

[Ultra-Violence]

my thoughts on these "communist" guirrilla movents is that i dont beilev that such a thing exist. i know guerilla tactics have existed for hundreds of years but "che" says it himself that hes agianst kidanapings and murder of innoent poeple...i.e(terorism) because instead of getting poeple on your side u do the exact opposite.
Also its very obvious that most of these "movements" are phony from the start like the "movements&#39; in columbia were the "guerrillas" are just a bunch of drug lords.

And just wondering if any body here has read Guerrilla Warfare by "che"?i know guerrilla tactics has existed for along time but this lays out an outline of what a gurrilla movement should be&#33; :ph34r:

[JC1]

JC1&#39;s response is really fairly typical: They kill people? So what. Which of course evades the whole point, that the CPN(M) and Sendero are conducting terror against working people and the workers&#39; organizations. I&#39;d really welcome a response which actually deals with the main point. I haven&#39;t seen one so far, in any thread.


Never Mind the fact the CPN M is the largest orginizer of workers in kathmandu , via there union orginization.

the Fighting a gurrila war ok ? How can a guerilla war be fought without signafagant popular suppourt ?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;Violence+--> (Ultra&#045;Violence)My thoughts on these "communist" guerrilla movements is that I don&#39;t believe that such things exist.[/b]



Associated Press
Rebels Kill at Least 25 Colombian Troops

BOGOTA, Colombia - Leftist rebels killed at least 25 soldiers during separate clashes in Colombia on Saturday, the military said. Another 18 soldiers were reported missing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050625/ap_on_...lombia_fighting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050625/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_fighting)


http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:43 PM
Never Mind the fact the CPN M is the largest orginizer of workers in kathmandu , via there union orginization.
Source? Lemme guess, the Maoists said so and it must be true.

[Holocaustpulp]

anomaly: "HP, are you saying you oppose guerrilla warfare in general, or do you simply oppose these secific guerrillas? It seems to me that guerrilla warfare is a the prime weapon of revolutionaries around the world. As for &#39;how&#39; guerrilla warfare should be fought, I agree with you entirely that guerrilla groups should never betray the lower class by slaughtering them...certainly not. Instead, we should turn to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara for an indication as to how guerrilla warfare should be fought. The objective should be to gather alliances, not create many enemies. Castro was the master of this art. But this leads to my question, are these guerrillas we&#39;re talking about really just slaughtering everyone, as HP says?"

I oppose a number of guerrilla movements precisely due to their tactics, which aren&#39;t revolutionary at all, but rather imposing and even evil. This includes the Napalese Maoists. However, as I said in a previous statement in this same thread:

"As a form of appeal, guerrillas should prove themselves better than the imperialists by not harming the people they wish to serve, by not committing imposing measures, and essentially by only harming the government. This way the guerrillas would effectively promote the revolutionary struggle while defying the imperialists, indeed a productive platform. To advise against this prolongs revolution longer than needed and ultimately poisons the revolutionary struggle."

Hence, I am not against all guerrilla movements, for indeed in pasttime Latin America they were executed correctly and effectively. However, in many other locations the movements have betrayed the masses. I wish to invoke an article by Pablo Sanchez (posted on Marxist.com) concerning the recent Maoist movement in Nepal. It reads as follows:

"If the Maoists had a clean record and were a truly revolutionary force they would be able to call on the poor Nepalese to overthrow the present corrupt regime, now that there are mobilisations taking place against the monarchy. At the same time they could call on the Indian proletariat, as well as the Pakistani working class, to mobilise against their own governments that conspire against the Nepalese masses.

But their own methods put them in a blind alley. Years of bombs in Kathmandu and other cities, and killing of the leaders of the CPN-UML and the left in general cannot be understood by the thousands of supporters of the biggest left party in Nepal and the millions of left activists in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

In spite of their declared aims, the Nepalese CPN-M leaders are providing the state with an excuse to strengthen its machinery of repression. On the other hand the CPN-UML leaders, because of their lack of a revolutionary programme, are not in a position to challenge the ruling class of Nepal and provide a real solution to the masses of Nepal."

The Maoists are disillusioned in Nepal. Everyone knows it but themselves - a minority of the lower class only seeks them out because of the horrors of capitalism, yet the more moderate leftist organizations are appearing to be more favorable to a country that needs guided revolution.

RedStar: Your trivial arguments are almost amusing.

"I&#39;m continually astonished at the people who piss and moan endlessly about guerrilla &#39;atrocities&#39; while refusing to acknowledge the far greater atrocities of U.S. imperialism and its quislings. Would you like &#39;perfect guerrillas&#39; who are &#39;without sin&#39;? Gee, me too. Do you know of any? I don&#39;t. Now what?"

The atrocities committed by the Napalese Maoists (among others) that the majority of people are recognizing (including Marxists) are those that oust the lower class and blatantly impose a personal (not revolutiuonary) will over them. IS this not exactly what the imperialist capitalists do? Yes, capitalism does breed more atrocities, as is the cause of them. However, we cannot accept movements that aren&#39;t for the proletariat and peasant&#39;s rights, and when the Maoists in Nepal kill off leftist leaders and the general populace, people tend to know that the guerrillas aren&#39;t fighting in their favor.

"At least &#39;everyone on earth&#39; with access to the bourgeois media. Most of them also add (in a footnote at the bottom of page 57) that the monarchy is far worse. Now what?"

It&#39;s not a matter of metric, but a matter of ETHICS. You can&#39;t give up the revolution in return for saying that atrocities committed by guerrillas are not as bad as those committed by the capitalists.

I felt I needed to answer these questions to Severian.

"Is it your wish that the Nepalese monarchy successfully defeat the Nepalese Maoists?"

No, it is my wish that a true revolutionary organization and/or the general masses defeat the monarchy; the Maoists are begging to show themselves as dictators just like the Khmer Rouge.

"Is it your wish that the American occupation forces and their quisling regime successfully defeat the Iraqi resistance?"

No, it is my wish for the US to get out of Iraq, and for the insurgents - common people who have taken up arms in defense (i.e., not terrorists) - to help form a government that isn&#39;t America&#39;s stooge. I do not however support the terrorists.

"If you genuinely think that the guerrilla movements in those particular countries are hopelessly reactionary enemies of the workers and peasants, then you should have no problem with those questions. You should be able to say &#39;with a clear conscience&#39; that &#39;the American alternative is better&#39;."

You make the scenerio too simple - you generalize to your heart&#39;s content. And, while doing so, you kill room for progressive improvement in the organization of guerrilla movements and you pull the whole concept of revolution back with you. Communists don&#39;t support class enemies, and that is what many guerrillas have become.

- Holocaustpulp

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Holocaustpulp
It&#39;s not a matter of metric, but a matter of ETHICS.

Well&#33; Three cheers for "ETHICS" then. :lol:

Perhaps you will start a group called the Ethical Revolutionary Movement which will overthrow the monarchy in Nepal, smash the American-British occupation of Iraq, and disperse the various quisling regimes in the Andean region of South America.

I await the outcome of your initiatives with great interest. :D

Meanwhile, I will support the people who are actually fighting imperialist tyranny...until your "ethics" demonstrate real-world usefulness in the armed struggle. (Surely, you will not lecture us on "peaceful methods"...right?)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Holocaustpulp]

ReadStar: "Meanwhile, I will support the people who are actually fighting imperialist tyranny...until your &#39;ethics&#39; demonstrate real-world usefulness in the armed struggle. (Surely, you will not lecture us on &#39;peaceful methods&#39;...right?)"

Ethics as they relate to the actual people, i.e. the working masses. That meaning, that the people should be respected (for it is their revolution, moreso than the guerrilla&#39;s) and not abused in the same fashion that they are in capitalism. Mao knew that his revolutionary force should abide by a code of ethics in order to not betray his base, so he enforced such ethics. Now, the Maoists in Nepal, the Naxalites (sp?) in India, FARC, they have all done something to become a class enemy.

However, you continuously refuse to accept any of my arguments or even look at them (or so it appears) and comfort yourself by branding me a bourgeois pseudo. Funny, Marx always said the revolution was for the workers, not for the oppressive "revolutionary" groups. What you label as "my" ethics - in realityChe&#39;s and Mao&#39;s ethics - have demonstrated "real-world usefulness in the armed struggle," moreso than reactionary movements.

So since when have you lost sight of this, comrade?

- HP

[redstar2000]

Unfortunately, Mao and Che are dead...we don&#39;t have them around any more to run "ethical" movements against imperialism.

All we have are the movements that actually exist...that are actually shooting at imperialists and/or their lackeys right now at this moment.

There is no point in dragging Marx into all this; these anti-imperialist revolutions are not communist in any sense...they are peasant revolutions (with the exception of the Iraqi resistance) and will lead eventually to those places becoming modern capitalist countries.

This will probably be the long-range outcome of the Iraqi resistance as well -- it may be technically "working class" but present-day Iraqi workers are probably as backward as Russian workers in 1900, if not more so.

You imagine that they should "act like communists"...but why should they?

Why should they act according to our ethical standards?

And why should we "hold them" to our standards? On what grounds?

If you want to argue that communists should not support any resistance to imperialism that isn&#39;t communist -- well, ok. But that strikes me as extremely sectarian...even by my standards.

You cannot argue on any reasonable grounds that I can see that any of these existing movements will be worse than ongoing imperialist domination...can you??? In fact, for most people, those movements represent an improvement in the situation that presently exists -- otherwise they&#39;d simply have no support at all, right?

So are you going to just shrug your shoulders and say "fuck &#39;em all&#33; I don&#39;t care which side wins."??? Or worse...are you going to say that U.S. imperialism should win "because" the guerrillas would be even worse???

This isn&#39;t a matter of labels -- like "bourgeois pseudo" -- it&#39;s a matter of which side you are on. Do you think the colonies/neo-colonies should be free to find their own paths to capitalism and communism OR is the "guidance" (imperial domination) of the U.S. ruling class and its lackeys "required"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Holocaustpulp]

RedStar: "Unfortunately, Mao and Che are dead...we don&#39;t have them around any more to run &#39;ethical&#39; movements against imperialism."

Oh, I see. Well, in that case, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Proudhon are dead, so they can&#39;t run communism any more; it&#39;s now all just water under the bridge.

You can&#39;t be serious. History lives on through writing, as do the morals presented by Che and Mao. "They" themselves don&#39;t have to run guerrilla movements, but instead have provided the world with practical guidelines for doing so.

"All we have are the movements that actually exist...that are actually shooting at imperialists and/or their lackeys right now at this moment."

You still don&#39;t seem to realize the Nepalese Maoists are both shooting at an oppressive king (with loose ties to the imperialists, unless you consider imperialism in the economic sense) and AT THE NEPALESE PEOPLE. We should never in our time of struggle be so complacent as to claim that we should not progress upon what we have, which is exactly what I am endorsing. Many current movements are very reactionary, and if such reactionary elements don&#39;t represent their communist ends which they are trying to obtain, then all communists should rethink the support of such guerrillas. I&#39;d rather have a growing worker&#39;s organization true to its communist goal or an organization undergoing reforms in order to better connect with the masses (what we can make) than put my heels in the ground and promote the existence of an establish organization that has strayed from the cause ("all that we have"). Of course, guerrilla movements don&#39;t always follow this path, and my statement pertains to those organizations that have lost their way.

"There is no point in dragging Marx into all this; these anti-imperialist revolutions are not communist in any sense...they are peasant revolutions (with the exception of the Iraqi resistance) and will lead eventually to those places becoming modern capitalist countries.
This will probably be the long-range outcome of the Iraqi resistance as well -- it may be technically &#39;working class&#39; but present-day Iraqi workers are probably as backward as Russian workers in 1900, if not more so."

Trust me when I say this: FARC wants a communist society, the Naxalites want a communist society, and the Maoists in Nepal want a communist society (Iraq does not pertain because the discussion is about guerrilla warfare as the means to achieve communism). Hence, all movements are realtive communism in complete form. It is not their goal to become "modern capitalist countries," and in all probability, they never will even if the guerrilla inadvertantly produce this outcome due to the fact that the imperialist West will always be superior in the world market because they control the means of production (imposition via globalization).

Perhaps dialectics may state that a certain amount of capitalist development must be reached in order for a communist society to function. However, Russia and China did not have this privilege. And as seen by the solutions presented by Trotsky in "Revolution Betrayed," such progress is conceivable and possible within a socialist society.

"You imagine that they should &#39;act like communists&#39;...but why should they? Why should they act according to our ethical standards? And why should we &#39;hold them&#39; to our standards? On what grounds?"

I don&#39;t imagine they should act like communist, but rather I know they should BE communists, for that is definitely what they claim to be, and hence they should perform the guerrilla movement in the spirit and in the virtues of communist ideology. They should act according to the standards of the revolution, those by which the workers and peasants are honored, not killed. We should be holding no one to communist standards, but communists should be performing such standards independently. This rests on the grounds of the international movement in general.

"If you want to argue that communists should not support any resistance to imperialism that isn&#39;t communist -- well, ok. But that strikes me as extremely sectarian...even by my standards.
You cannot argue on any reasonable grounds that I can see that any of these existing movements will be worse than ongoing imperialist domination...can you??? In fact, for most people, those movements represent an improvement in the situation that presently exists -- otherwise they&#39;d simply have no support at all, right?"

I support resistance to imperialism, suppression, and oppression as long as it adheres by the rights of the masses and does not exploit the people instead. I support communists, activists, labor unionists, guerrillas, etc. in this field. Like I said before, it does not matter whether or not guerrilla movements are worse in comparison to imperialism; what does matter is that movements forget the scale of comparison and rather advance the struggle by means of humane tactics that only hurt the oppressor. Like I said concerning Nepal, people still do support the Maoists (if they aren&#39;t forced to) out of desparation - yet the more humane tactics of reformist organizations in Nepal will continue to attract more followers because they better advance the rights of the people, inside and outside of the organization.

So are you going to just shrug your shoulders and say &#39;fuck &#39;em all&#33; I don&#39;t care which side wins.&#39;???"

No, I&#39;m going to support the people and ensure that their side wins.

"Or worse...are you going to say that U.S. imperialism should win &#39;because&#39; the guerrillas would be even worse???"

No, but I&#39;m going to support a better group of people than the lost guerrillas.

"This isn&#39;t a matter of labels -- like &#39;bourgeois pseudo&#39; -- it&#39;s a matter of which side you are on."

And you give me a sense that you&#39;ve chosen my side and hence labeled me.

"Do you think the colonies/neo-colonies should be free to find their own paths to capitalism and communism OR is the &#39;guidance&#39; (imperial domination) of the U.S. ruling class and its lackeys &#39;required&#39;?"

The guidance of communist ideals is intrinsically necessary for the foundation of communist principles. Imperialism or imposition of any type does not play a role in any of this.

- Holocaustpulp

[redstar2000]

Ok, I see your point.

You think those guerrilla groups really "are communists" because they say so.

So therefore, when they behave badly, you think they have "betrayed communism".

I don&#39;t think that any of those groups would know communism from rheumatism myself...and why should they?

Their subjective desires and the labels they pick for themselves have nothing to do with objective reality.

What they are really doing is making peasant anti-imperialist revolutions. Inspite of all the rhetoric, red flags, etc., the eventual outcome of their success will be modern capitalist societies.

That&#39;s what happened in Russia, China, etc. It&#39;s happening right now in Vietnam and Cuba. It&#39;s what will happen in Colombia, Peru, Nepal, etc.

The objective material conditions for communism do not exist in those countries and won&#39;t exist for (probably) another couple of centuries.

Trotsky&#39;s idea -- that backward countries could "leap over capitalism" provided they had the right kind of leadership -- is un-Marxist and worse, just completely wrong.

A backward country that really tried to introduce communism following a victorious peasant revolution would end up like...Cambodia&#33; :o

What the Maoists in Nepal, Colombia, Peru, etc. will actually do is install a despotism...that will economically develop the country, teach the peasantry how to be workers, introduce them to things like literacy, clean drinking water, modern medicine, and regular meals.

They will do exactly what bourgeois revolutions in the "west" did...and they will probably do it somewhat more humanely.

But they will not "do communism" ever...nor do they really intend that except in a metaphysical way -- "someday we&#39;ll have communism". Someday, those countries will have communism...but there will be no remaining Maoists around when that happens.

Meanwhile, you wish to be "stiff-necked" on the matter and refuse to support those perfectly legitimate struggles to free those countries from the yoke of imperialism.

And that&#39;s what I can&#39;t understand about your position.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

I disagree, redstar, when you say that &#39;backward&#39; nations cannot have communism. Now, perhaps a national insurgency will not create communism (nor do any of the mentioned revolutions intend to create communism), but a committed local insurgency with popular support in their local area can create communism, if the land on which they have their revolution is able to give them essential self-sufficiency.

[Colombia]

What must be taken note is that these backward nations are often exploited by the imperialists. When the guerillas take over and force the imperialists to leave, they then have nothing to improve their standard of living. Think of it like CAFTA. If the US Senate voted to end CAFTA, a ton of people in Central America would be without jobs. This is much worse than having a job that at least pays you something.

Until the backward country becomes industrialized thanks to imperialist exploitaition, there is no hope for even a socialist society to be formed. China would be a prime example of how quickly it became industrialized thanks in part to the Western Powers. Now that China is on top, it can rely less and less on the West to survive and become self-sufficient.

Self-Sufficiency is impossible without industrialization. There are so many examples. North Korea and Cambodia are two.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)...a committed local insurgency with popular support in their local area can create communism, if the land on which they have their revolution is able to give them essential self-sufficiency.[/b]

Well, it would be "self-sufficiency" on the level of peasant subsistence farming...an utterly wretched existence with no future but more of the same.

Unless you&#39;re imagining a handful of "humanitarian westerners" visiting from time to time...bringing in a few bits and pieces of modern civilization as their hearts move them.

Something like this might work, after a fashion, provided it was an area that the imperialists were uninterested in.

There&#39;s not many places like that.


Colombia
Until the backward country becomes industrialized thanks to imperialist exploitation, there is no hope for even a socialist society to be formed.

But that&#39;s my very point&#33; The imperialists don&#39;t industrialize these backward countries in a broad way. They "hyper-develop" a small part of the economy and leave the rest to rot.

When the Maoist or Maoist-inspired guerrillas take over, they are the ones who will really develop the economy in the way that capitalists developed their own economies in the 19th and 20th centuries. When the Maoists become capitalists themselves (as they have and will) and welcome foreign direct investment once more, it is on their terms and not the imperialists.

China doesn&#39;t need, for example, to buy airplanes from Boeing or Airbus -- it can make its own airplanes now. But it&#39;s willing to buy from Boeing or Airbus provided that the corporations transfer modern technology to Chinese firms.

Otherwise, it&#39;s no deal&#33;

"Old China" could never have done either of those things -- build its own planes or negotiate from a position of strength with the imperialist corporations.

When the guerrillas win and eventually become a modern capitalist class, they can and do insist on a far better deal with the imperialists than the old quisling regimes.

And they get it&#33; Because if the imperialists get too greedy, they can now make it themselves.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 11:09 AM
When the Maoist or Maoist-inspired guerrillas take over, they are the ones who will really develop the economy in the way that capitalists developed their own economies in the 19th and 20th centuries. When the Maoists become capitalists themselves (as they have and will) and welcome foreign direct investment once more, it is on their terms and not the imperialists.
I cannot see any reason why anyone would imagine that Shining Path would be good for the industrial development of Peru, or the CPN(M) for the development of Nepal....except that it fits Redstar&#39;s overall schema of world politics.

Reality is, of course, more complex than any schema (even better schemas than Redstar&#39;s). I might point out, for example, that south Korea very rapidly and "broadly" industrialized under a pro-imperialist regime and even a large U.S. troop presence.

(I don&#39;t expect that example can be followed everywhere, and even south Korea has run into trouble on that path....because of the obstacles to capitalist development for any country coming from behind in a world market dominated by imperialism. It&#39;s just a handy counterexample for simplistic schemas.)

[redstar2000]

Yes, what you say is true...and also applies in varying degrees to Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong...and even Thailand.

In those places, the national bourgeoisie turned out to be made of rather sterner stuff than has been the norm over the last century.

As to my "schema" being oversimplified, that&#39;s indisputable. All representations of objective reality are less complicated than reality itself...otherwise they wouldn&#39;t be representations.

What is crucial is: is my "schema" of the present situation fundamentally correct or is it fundamentally incorrect?

Severian seems to think that the Maoist guerrillas are either "doomed to fail" or, if they succeed, will be "like Pol Pot".

And I think otherwise -- that they will do what the national bourgeoisie did in 19th and early 20th century Europe.

And there are practical conclusions that follow from these respective views. In Severian&#39;s case, you oppose the Maoists and support groups that engage in "peaceful struggle" against imperialism.

In my case, I reject "peaceful struggle" against imperialism and support those who take up armed struggle against it. I assume that in most places at most times, imperialism cannot be "peacefully expelled" -- only revolutionary violence will "get the job done".

While there have certainly been occasional exceptions, I think the overwhelming weight of the historical evidence is clearly in my favor.

But the reader must make his/her own evaluation.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Trotsky&#39;s idea -- that backward countries could "leap over capitalism" provided they had the right kind of leadership -- is un-Marxist and worse, just completely wrong.

Trotsky argued that backward countries like Russia can "leap over capitalism" provided that there is revolution in the advanced West. And if there had been revolution in the West - which did not come about not because of objective reasons but, decisively, subjective ones - the Russian revolution would have advanced and conservative trends within the state leadership (i.e. Stalinism) would have had less room to grow.

On the guerrilla movements in latin america and elsewhere, they are isolated. We dont see any solidarity movements in the West supporting such movements, as we did see in the 20th century. I think these movements are not much more than relics of the past.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
And if there had been revolution in the West - which did not come about not because of objective reasons but, decisively, subjective ones...

Whoa&#33; Let&#39;s stop right there.

You are proposing that objective conditions favored proletarian revolution (in western Europe) in the aftermath of World War I and, further, that the "decisive reason" that they didn&#39;t happen was "subjective" -- by which I presume you mean that there was no "Lenin" or "Trotsky" in Germany, France or England.

Completely ignoring something else that failed to appear in those three countries at that time -- a massive uprising of the working class.

There was no "February 1917" in any of those countries or anything even remotely like it. Germany did manage a sailors&#39; rebellion and, in Berlin and Hamburg, there were substantial numbers of workers who participated in abortive risings -- but there was no "biggie".

Some front-line units in France did mutiny -- but there was no massive uprising in Paris to support them.

And in England? Nothing at all until the General Strike of 1926&#33;

So what difference would it have made even if there had been a German, or French, or English equivalent of "Lenin" or "Trotsky"? Do you imagine that those guys possessed the talent of conjuring revolution out of thin air?

That is simply mind-boggling.


I think these [Maoist] movements are not much more than relics of the past.

Rather livelier "relics" than anything I&#39;ve noticed about Trotskyism in the "west" these days.

But we&#39;ll see.

Meanwhile, perhaps you should give some thought to who in the colonies/neo-colonies will take the field against U.S. imperialism in our era.

Or is resisting imperialism no longer "on your agenda"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

I presume you mean that there was no "Lenin" or "Trotsky" in Germany

Exactly. Instead there was Kautsky and Bernstein, and they were on the left of the SPD&#33; Even the leadership of the German Communist Party - Red Rosa et al - though superb in their internationalism and staunch opposition to the imperialist Great War, took on the tactics of the tailism that Lenin had so correctly criticised. While the objective circumstances that these revolutionaries found themselves in were of course very consequential, the tragic defeat of the German working class (and the rise of Nazism) was by no means inevitable.


There was no "February 1917" in any of those countries or anything even remotely like it. Germany did manage a sailors&#39; rebellion and, in Berlin and Hamburg, there were substantial numbers of workers who participated in abortive risings -- but there was no "biggie".

So how is to be explained? By objective conditions alone? What about the reformist tactics that were dominating the left? The fact that the opportunistic leaders of the working class shamelessly sold out their revolutionary principles in order to gain respectability in bourgeois political circles? Or even the theoretical mistakes made by the revolutionary sections of the labour leadership? Luxemburg even went as far as to say that reformism within the labour movement at that time was a product of the development of capitalism. This was precisely what Lenin objected to: bowing slavishly to spontaneity. Should the leaders of the working class not take any responsibility for the defeat of the working class? Of course they should. Instead, we make convenient excuses for their mistakes and failures.


So what difference would it have made even if there had been a German, or French, or English equivalent of "Lenin" or "Trotsky"? Do you imagine that those guys possessed the talent of conjuring revolution out of thin air?

You&#39;re still presupposing that the political development of the working class coincides with its economic development. Political forces are capable of advancing economic conditions. In Russia, the Bolshevik tradition was an immensely advanced one when compared to that in other countries at the time. And yet, economically, the working class was in its infancy.

A question: if leading Bolsheviks were imprisoned or murdered by Tsarist forces pre-1917, and if the Mensheviks found themselves in a more dominant position withing the movement, would there have been an October Revolution.

Sorry for going so far off the initial subject of the thread. I&#39;ve not got enough time or energy at the moment to reply to the rest of your last post, RedStar. Probably tommorow...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
So how is to be explained? By objective conditions alone?

What else?

Surely you can&#39;t be suggesting that the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, anarchists, Kadets, et.al., were "responsible" for February 1917 in Petrograd? Or that anyone "organized" it???

In fact, the contemporary evidence suggests that the great uprising came as a complete shock to all the organized revolutionary groups in Russia...and around the world as well.

Everyone expected a bourgeois revolution in Russia (beginning with Marx and Engels themselves in the late 1870s)...no one anticipated anything remotely like Petrograd.

And, most importantly, nothing "like Petrograd" happened in Germany, France or England.

Objective material conditions did not permit it.


Should the leaders of the working class not take any responsibility for the defeat of the working class? Of course they should.

Well, I don&#39;t much care if they "beat their breasts" or not. I think objective conditions are decisive...and the role of "leadership" in revolution is of marginal significance.


Political forces are capable of advancing economic conditions. In Russia, the Bolshevik tradition was an immensely advanced one when compared to that in other countries at the time. And yet, economically, the working class was in its infancy.

Quite so...and yet still objective material conditions prevailed. By 1922, Lenin was re-introducing capitalism and positively begging for direct foreign investment again. He and his Bolsheviks were doing exactly what a vigorous native bourgeoisie would have done...had one existed.

And, of course, by 1922 the Russian working class had no power at all.


A question: if leading Bolsheviks were imprisoned or murdered by Tsarist forces pre-1917, and if the Mensheviks found themselves in a more dominant position withing the movement, would there have been an October Revolution.

Probably not...but it would not have been missed. The Mensheviks would have had their own version of the NEP and it would have been introduced right away...instead of after the civil war. They too would have done what material reality demanded.

By the way, you might find this collection useful as an insight into my views on this question...

October 1917 -- Revolution or Coup? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1109888439&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Redstar, we cannot explain historical events by objective circumstances alone. Marxists study phenomena in its totality: we see dialectical interconnections in our study of society. We see the subject of history in the capitalist epoch as the working class. If capitalist society is the &#39;object&#39;, and the working class is the subject, then the overthrow of capitalist society (i.e. the objective conditions) depends on subjectivity (i.e. the movement of the working class). So to see the defeat of the German working class purely as a result of objective conditions is to diminish the history-making role of the working class. This is not to say that the working class exists in a kind of social vacuum, where the objective conditions of its existence do not influence its actions. But it is to say that if the history-making role of the working class, its role as a revolutionary subject, is not emphasised, and if the working class is left at the mercy of objective conditions (i.e. the spontaneous ups-and-downs of capitalist development), then at best we can expect trade union militancy and military mutiny, or outright reformism or reaction. As revolutionaries we have to bring out the revolutionary potential of the working class.


Everyone expected a bourgeois revolution in Russia (beginning with Marx and Engels themselves in the late 1870s)...no one anticipated anything remotely like Petrograd.

In the preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto Marx prothetically argued that a Russian revolution could be successful only if it sparked-off revolution in Europe.


And, most importantly, nothing "like Petrograd" happened in Germany, France or England.

Objective material conditions did not permit it.

Perhaps subjective shortcomings did not permit it?


Quite so...and yet still objective material conditions prevailed. By 1922, Lenin was re-introducing capitalism and positively begging for direct foreign investment again. He and his Bolsheviks were doing exactly what a vigorous native bourgeoisie would have done...had one existed.

The NEP was introduced by Lenin as part of a strategy to rebuild industry and hence rebuild the social base of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the industrial working class, after the Civil War. It was intended as a short-term measure that would inevitably have to be employed for as long as the Russian socialist state remained isolated internationally (which Lenin, pre-1923, did not think would be for very long).


The October "Revolution" was really a coup.

Don&#39;t let bourgeois historians influence your judgement of history. To call one of the greatest worker uprisings of history a &#39;coup&#39; is insulting.

[Holocaustpulp]

RedStar: "You think those guerrilla groups really &#39;are communists&#39; because they say so."

What I am arguing is that these guerrilla movements aren&#39;t communist because of their betrayal to communist ethics, not because they say they are. A more conscious and sensible guerrilla movement, such as that carried out by Che, would easily be called and self-proclaimed communist.

"So therefore, when they behave badly, you think they have &#39;betrayed communism&#39;."

You must understand that guerrilla warfare can have a place in the achievement of communism. While such movements try to carry out communist principles and fail at them, they both fail the people and betray the name and ideals of communism, which is their main objective.

"I don&#39;t think that any of those groups would know communism from rheumatism myself...and why should they?"

Because they are advocating communism and clearly have studied to topic in order to advocate it. Of course, the issue then becomes one of sects and each faction&#39;s take on how to attain communism.

"Their subjective desires and the labels they pick for themselves have nothing to do with objective reality."

I see this is quickly becoming a question of dialectics. Going along with dialectical materialist theory, these movements do reflect objective reality as the ruling power has created the conditions by which it is possible to be overthrown.

"What they are really doing is making peasant anti-imperialist revolutions. Inspite of all the rhetoric, red flags, etc., the eventual outcome of their success will be modern capitalist societies."

What the guerrillas are doing are trying to obtain communism. Of course, due to the tactics of this particular bunch of guerrillas, this is not going to happen. Hence, they are promoting anti-imperialist action, but they aren&#39;t doing for the workers or the peasants, of which they&#39;ve left behind. The process by which dialectics works does fortell that such hindered movements will produce modern capitalism (let us note Cambodia, Vietnam, somewhat India).

However, materialist conditions - i.e., those of which exist outside the world of consciousness - do not apply to the guerrilla movements themselves, which operate subjectively; indeed, it is the materialist conditions that drive the guerrillas to persist in their struggle. And as Marx states concerning dialectics, when the objective is rightly understood, "the material conditions [means] for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation".

Thus, the quote can be interpreted two ways: the first of which coincides with your thesis: these struggles will result in modern capitalism. This relies on the fact that the objective is understood, yet the subjective conditions (not the materialist ones) are not proper. Hence, the other interpretation goes as follows: the objective is rightly understood and the subjective conditions are proper, in that they are truly communist and implemented in a communist fashion. The latter will win the movement immediate communism.

Cambodia, Vietnam, and Angola all confirm that a mislead movement leads to a twist in the dialectical scheme in favor of the capitalists; Russia and Cuba, before they were tainted by centralization as means of dictatorship and the end of worker&#39;s rights, confirm that a movement that abides by communist principles can achieve communism without capitalist modernization. Help from the industrialized West is merely a perk.

"The objective material conditions for communism do not exist in those countries and won&#39;t exist for (probably) another couple of centuries."

This is a false statement considering the fact that: a.) a movement for communism already exists b.) capitalism has oppressed the people to the extent that they know of a solution to such oppression c.) that we can apply the before used Marx quote.

"Trotsky&#39;s idea -- that backward countries could &#39;leap over capitalism&#39; provided they had the right kind of leadership -- is un-Marxist and worse, just completely wrong."

It&#39;s not un-Marxist at all because that it coincides with Marx&#39;s principles.

"A backward country that really tried to introduce communism following a victorious peasant revolution would end up like...Cambodia&#33; ohmy.gif"

Wrong - the backward country aspect is irrelevant concerning this topic. What is necessary to recognize is the backward leadership of Pol Pot, a dictator and murderer who did not uphold anyone&#39;s rights. Also, in the case of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge won over a large portion of their base by making an alliance with the prince.

"What the Maoists in Nepal, Colombia, Peru, etc. will actually do is install a despotism..." ---- If they succeed, yes they will, and this is due to their lapses in Marxist ideals and leadership.

"...that will economically develop the country, teach the peasantry how to be workers, introduce them to things like literacy, clean drinking water, modern medicine, and regular meals."

This sounds like you&#39;re all in favor of capitalism. Do you honestly think capitalism will lift up the entire world from wages of &#036;1 a day?, make available to all regular meals?, make available modern medicine without taking away from some other portion of society?

Communism has proven to do all of these things you mentioned without capitalism. Take for example Cuba&#39;s free schooling and its high literacy levels as well as increased living standards in the early years of its regime, the USSR&#39;s advancement in industrialization and medicine within its quasi-socialist system...

Then see how India under capitalism struggles with literacy, how Egypt struggles with clean and available water, how Latin America must face atrocities liek CAFTA in order to be exploited into accepted medicine, how capitalism does not give the poorest people a regular meal.

"They will do exactly what bourgeois revolutions in the &#39;west&#39; did...and they will probably do it somewhat more humanely."

If you&#39;re referring to industrialization, the West had one big advantage: they were the ones who were (and still are) the imperialists. The events occuring in Vietnam and India concerning capitalist development and industrialization operate for the sake of the West, and thus while there are some advancements, the riches are stolen, and that is the price paid.

"But they will not &#39;do communism&#39; ever...nor do they really intend that except in a metaphysical way -- &#39;someday we&#39;ll have communism&#39;. Someday, those countries will have communism...but there will be no remaining Maoists around when that happens."

Again, leadership and the direction of the movement.

"Meanwhile, you wish to be &#39;stiff-necked&#39; on the matter and refuse to support those perfectly legitimate struggles to free those countries from the yoke of imperialism."

I am "stiff-necked" because these movements have practical potential to serve the hands of the people, not the hands of the imperialist capitalists. As you said, the dialectical mishap you wish to justify will merely boost capitalism in those countries, and will not help the workers at all. Dragging your heels in the ground and taking the long root in terms of dialectics as well as time and supporting movements that harm the majority populace (i.e., the lower-class) undercuts the poor and decreases the momentum of the socialist movement.

As Marx states, "The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism - that of Feuerbach included - is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively."

- Holocaustpulp

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 18 2005, 12:09 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 18 2005, 12:09 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
...a committed local insurgency with popular support in their local area can create communism, if the land on which they have their revolution is able to give them essential self-sufficiency.

Well, it would be "self-sufficiency" on the level of peasant subsistence farming...an utterly wretched existence with no future but more of the same.

Unless you&#39;re imagining a handful of "humanitarian westerners" visiting from time to time...bringing in a few bits and pieces of modern civilization as their hearts move them.

Something like this might work, after a fashion, provided it was an area that the imperialists were uninterested in.

There&#39;s not many places like that.


Colombia
Until the backward country becomes industrialized thanks to imperialist exploitation, there is no hope for even a socialist society to be formed.

But that&#39;s my very point&#33; The imperialists don&#39;t industrialize these backward countries in a broad way. They "hyper-develop" a small part of the economy and leave the rest to rot.

When the Maoist or Maoist-inspired guerrillas take over, they are the ones who will really develop the economy in the way that capitalists developed their own economies in the 19th and 20th centuries. When the Maoists become capitalists themselves (as they have and will) and welcome foreign direct investment once more, it is on their terms and not the imperialists.

China doesn&#39;t need, for example, to buy airplanes from Boeing or Airbus -- it can make its own airplanes now. But it&#39;s willing to buy from Boeing or Airbus provided that the corporations transfer modern technology to Chinese firms.

Otherwise, it&#39;s no deal&#33;

"Old China" could never have done either of those things -- build its own planes or negotiate from a position of strength with the imperialist corporations.

When the guerrillas win and eventually become a modern capitalist class, they can and do insist on a far better deal with the imperialists than the old quisling regimes.

And they get it&#33; Because if the imperialists get too greedy, they can now make it themselves.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Yes, redstar, I do refer to &#39;wretched&#39; peasant-subsistence farming. Certainly, it is no utopia, but it would provide the people with the very thing they presently severely lack-subsistence. And this &#39;wretched&#39; existence (if it&#39;s large enough, I don&#39;t think it would be so wretched...by large I mean large enough to adequetely farm) can be greatly improved not through trading with &#39;charitable&#39; westerners, but through trading with allies. Venezuela, Cuba, even the Zapatistas could potentially trade with a commune, especially if this commune consistently overproduced food. These countries may not be communist or even socialist, but I&#39;m sure they&#39;d respect our cause and be willing to trade, especially if we can do a service to them. Obviously, this is a stretch, but I do think it is quite possible. The real point in all of this is that currently the people of the global south, in many cases, does not in fact have subsistence, and the very idea of their own farms, their own subsistence, their own commune, away from the rich north, is an improvement. And after this one example, the idea may catch fire, and hopefully we&#39;ll see some more agrarian communes popping up. You do make a valid point, however, that it will be difficult to defend this commune from capitalists, and for that, I suppose we will have to rely on alliances.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism+--> (Marxism&#045;Leninism)Marxists study phenomena in its totality: we see dialectical interconnections in our study of society. We see the subject of history in the capitalist epoch as the working class. If capitalist society is the &#39;object&#39;, and the working class is the subject, then the overthrow of capitalist society (i.e. the objective conditions) depends on subjectivity (i.e. the movement of the working class). So to see the defeat of the German working class purely as a result of objective conditions is to diminish the history-making role of the working class.[/b]

The working class does not become a "subject" of history until it acts as "a class for itself" -- and that can&#39;t happen until objective conditions for that to happen have emerged.

A small minority of workers -- no matter how class conscious they may be -- cannot substitute their subjectivity for objective reality. The Spartakist Bund called on the workers to rise...and the workers declined to do so.

I am not "diminishing" the "history-making role" of the working class...they "diminished it" themselves.

No one called for the workers to rise in February 1917 Petrograd...they did it spontaneously -- they were (albeit briefly) a "class for themselves" and, properly speaking, subjects in history.

Why then and not some other time? And why there and not some other place?

We do not know -- but we assume that objective material conditions made something possible in that place and that time that was not possible anyplace else.

Petrograd was at the end of a very long delivery chain and Russian railroads were breaking down under the strain of the war. Food shortages there became intolerable.

The Czarist government was widely believed to be both corrupt and incompetent -- both of which were true.

Deserters from the front lines told people that the war was lost...also true.

The Czar was thought to be a cuckold and the Czarina was thought to be a German agent -- both probably not true but nonetheless widely believed to be true.

Even the supporters of the old regime despaired -- things "could not go on like this".

Thus Russia stood on the eve of its "1789".

Conditions were similar in Germany in 1919...Germany had never really had a "1789" either. So some of the same phenomena emerged there also.

But not enough&#33; There was no "Petrograd" in Berlin.

To imagine that there "could have been" a "Petrograd" in Berlin "if only" Germany had had a "Lenin" or a "Trotsky" is simply an exercise in fantasy -- a thinly-disguised "great man theory of history".

That&#39;s not how things work.

(Note that "1789" was long in the past in France and England -- no "Petrograd" was even remotely possible in those countries.)


In the preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, Marx prophetically argued that a Russian revolution could be successful only if it sparked-off revolution in Europe.

Well, he was wrong about that, wasn&#39;t he? Petrograd was successful, the Czarist system was overthrown and stayed overthrown, and all without any help at all from "revolution in Europe".


Perhaps subjective shortcomings did not permit it?

Poo&#33;


[The NEP] was intended as a short-term measure that would inevitably have to be employed for as long as the Russian socialist state remained isolated internationally (which Lenin, pre-1923, did not think would be for very long).

How is it that you think "intentions" are an acceptable substitute for what actually happened? By 1925-26, the NEP-men and the kulaks were "running wild".

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were responding to objective material conditions -- socialism (even their stunted version) was impossible in Russian conditions...so the restoration of capitalism was begun.


To call one of the greatest worker uprisings of history a &#39;coup&#39; is insulting.

"Insulting" it may be...but it&#39;s also the plain and simple truth.


Holocaustpulp
A more conscious and sensible guerrilla movement, such as that carried out by Che, would easily be called and self-proclaimed communist.

It might have been called "communist" or called itself "communist"...but the outcome of victory would not have been communism.

It would have been modern capitalism -- that&#39;s what&#39;s "on history&#39;s agenda" for Bolivia, et.al.


Because they are advocating communism and clearly have studied the topic in order to advocate it.

Quite...they may have indeed read Marx, but do you argue that they understood what he was saying?

You know, stuff like communism is not possible until all the productive capabilities of capitalism have been exhausted.

Do you imagine that Nepal, Peru, Colombia, et.al., are fully-developed capitalist societies ready for communist revolution?

Indeed, those guerrillas call themselves "communists" and, no doubt, sincerely believe in their own "red rhetoric".

So what?

They probably share the idealist conceit first formulated by Trotsky all the way back in 1914 (I think)...that by "revolutionary will-power" you can take a backward country and "shove it" into socialism without passing through capitalism at all.

That&#39;s not only wrong...it&#39;s been repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong.


I see this is quickly becoming a question of dialectics.

Oh no&#33; :o

The "Curse of Hegel"&#33; :o :o :o

Don&#39;t like material reality? Wave the "dialectical wand" and you can (verbally) change it into anything.

Harry Potter doesn&#39;t have one...but he should&#33;


The process by which dialectics works does foretell that such hindered movements will produce modern capitalism (let us note Cambodia, Vietnam, somewhat India).

:lol: You left out Russia and China. :lol:


And as Marx states concerning dialectics, when the objective is rightly understood, "the material conditions [means] for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation".

That also applies even if the objective is wrongly understood -- objective material conditions may still permit a particular problem to be solved.

The problem that all these countries face is becoming modern capitalist societies in a world dominated by imperialism.

The solution is to break the imperialist yoke and make a bourgeois revolution...or its equivalent.

Leninism-Maoism is a perfectly suitable equivalent...it does exactly what a vigorous native bourgeoisie would do if one existed.

You proceed as if you accepted the idea that these backward countries could break free from imperialism and develop communism.

That is materially IMPOSSIBLE&#33;...as was repeatedly demonstrated in the last century.

The imperialist yoke can be broken...but what emerges is always modern capitalism, not communism.


Russia and Cuba, before they were tainted by centralization as means of dictatorship and the end of worker&#39;s rights, confirm that a movement that abides by communist principles can achieve communism without capitalist modernization.

Unreal&#33; Even the most ardent upholders of those respective countries have never claimed they "achieved communism".


This is a false statement considering the fact that: a.) a movement for communism already exists; b.) capitalism has oppressed the people to the extent that they know of a solution to such oppression; c.) that we can apply the before used Marx quote.

No, they are not "movements for communism". No, most of the people in those countries have never heard of communism, have no idea of its meaning, and would enthusiastically welcome a modern, developed capitalism.

And no, a quotation from Marx does not effectively substitute for a realistic class analysis of a peasant society.


[Trotsky&#39;s idea is] not un-Marxist at all because that it coincides with Marx&#39;s principles.

Even if it did "coincide with Marx&#39;s principles" (it doesn&#39;t), it would still be wrong.


Wrong - the backward country aspect is irrelevant concerning this topic.

The "backward country aspect" is crucial to an even minimal understanding of this topic.

Do the words objective material reality mean anything at all to you?

There are things that can be done and things that cannot be done in each epoch of production...completely without regard to "what you want to do".


This sounds like you&#39;re all in favor of capitalism.

It does not matter what I am "in favor of"...or what anyone else is "in favor of", unless objective material conditions permit it.

We know, and Marx knew, what modern capitalism is capable of achieving in the way of economic development. The Russians and the Chinese both showed what a determined despotism can achieve as well -- "clearing the way" for modern capitalism.


Do you honestly think capitalism will lift up the entire world from wages of &#036;1 a day, make available to all regular meals, make available modern medicine without taking away from some other portion of society?

It can do so provided it&#39;s not "held back" by an alliance of imperialists and domestic reactionaries. To get "a good start" on the capitalist road, the imperialists must be expelled and the domestic reactionaries liquidated.

Then, real development can begin...the same way capitalism developed in the "west" in the 19th century. In addition, I think a good argument can be made that the Leninist-Maoists will be more "humane" in their policies than 19th century "western" capitalists were -- workers and peasants will materially benefit from development sooner and more generously...until modern capitalism finally emerges and "the iron rice bowl" is melted down for scrap.


Again, leadership and the direction of the movement.

Again, idealism posing as "Marxism".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

Redstar, what you suggest is that we simply wait patiently for communism to come, and it inevitably will (someday). This is seemingly contradictory to the attitude of the majority of those you claim will be &#39;ready&#39; for communism by 2050, I believe you&#39;ve said. As capitalism has advanced in the West, class consciousness has gone away. This is because as capitalism has advanced, conditions have improved. But capitalism also forces a majority to be proletarian, to be poor. It is this majority, those not living in the imperialist nations, that have the most reason to revolutionize, they have the most to gain. We see that the richer Western nations continually hold down the poorer nations of the world through &#39;free trade&#39; agreements, and so, it seems that the &#39;trickle-down&#39; theory of capitalist development will not materialize.

Because of the above, I do not think your predictions will come true, and I do not think that Marx&#39;s predicitions will be true (that the most developed nations will be the first to advance to socialism and then communism). There is simply no will in the majority of the rich global north to advance to communism, indeed, most do not see it as an advance at all. 50 years will only condense material wealth more, leaving the imperialist countries of today better off, the &#39;developing&#39; nations worse. And somehow you believe these advanced nations will have the will to fight for communism by this time?

Where is the will for change? Where is the will for communism? It is not in Western Europe, not in the USA, but rather in the poor global south. It is in these places where the change will likely take the form of communism first. Certainly, the communism there will be the primitivist mode you so despise, but it is also true that the material existence will likely better, even while the material existence will still seem poor by rich nations&#39; terms.

[Toussaint]

This is a very abstract debate.

I shall not talk about the Shninig Path, i shall talk about the FARC and ELN. They are very strong guerrillas and in fact last weeks, US government looked for talks to have 4 CIA agents released, prisoners of the FARS since nearly 3 years, despite of several hundreds of special forces sent to free them.

Colombia is a country where legal fighters, unionist as well as political militants, priests, human rights activists, whole communities are slaughtered.

The state is paramilitarist state. ANd the ruling class has always answered by an extraordinary barbarian and violent way to the mass struggles.

You simply cannot judge of this kind of situation simply by abstractions. Are-they or not communist? The answer is "i don&#39;t care", the answer is they are the reason why you can&#39;t confuse the us colony of now with the Colombia of tomorrow.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:03 AM
This is a very abstract debate.




True.


The state is paramilitarist state. ANd the ruling class has always answered by an extraordinary barbarian and violent way to the mass struggles.

Also true. But doesn&#39;t by itself say anything about the character or actions of the FARC and ELN, and whether their actions are a correct response to this situation.


You simply cannot judge of this kind of situation simply by abstractions. Are-they or not communist? The answer is "i don&#39;t care", the answer is they are the reason why you can&#39;t confuse the us colony of now with the Colombia of tomorrow.

That answer seems kinda....abstract.

I haven&#39;t said anything about the Colombian guerilla groups so far in this thread...and I&#39;m not sure I have the concrete knowledge to make any kind of definite assessment.

Of the FARC, one does have to ask whether they have become something of a business driven by the revenues they obtain from their relationship to the cocaine industry, more than their stated cause...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
Redstar, what you suggest is that we simply wait patiently for communism to come, and it inevitably will (someday).

Or, you can wait impatiently.

Or, you can try to do things that you think might "advance the struggle" -- and maybe they will (to a small extent) and maybe they won&#39;t (to a small extent).

What neither you nor any small minority will do is make a communist revolution when objective conditions are unsuitable -- if, by chance or circumstance, you find yourself with state power, you will just piss it away and the old capitalists will climb back in the saddle.

That&#39;s not a result of either your incompetence or your individual perfidy. First and foremost, communism depends on objectively favorable conditions...and so does revolution (of any kind).

It is, as I have noted elsewhere, a crucial theoretical weakness in the left that we are still unable to define those "objectively favorable conditions" with any precision.

However, there are hints. Revolution "might be on the agenda", for example, when ruling class bigmouths speak in tones of despair. "Things cannot go on like this" is a common (though not universal) symptom of an approaching revolutionary period.


This is seemingly contradictory to the attitude of the majority of those you claim will be &#39;ready&#39; for communism by 2050, I believe you&#39;ve said.

Well, I suggested 2050 for western Europe and 2100 for North America.

Those dates mean nothing of course...but people seem especially concerned about "when" stuff will "happen".

Much earlier dates don&#39;t seem plausible to me and even my own guesses could be wildly over-optimistic.

An excess of optimism is an "occupational hazard" for revolutionaries.


It is this majority, those not living in the imperialist nations, that have the most reason to revolutionize, they have the most to gain.

In a literal sense, that&#39;s not true. When a backward country introduces some form of egalitarian distribution, the consequence is "the equalization of misery"...what Marx called "Prussian socialism" or "barracks communism".

People in semi-capitalist countries live in wretched conditions; a Leninist revolution there simply re-distributes that misery in such a way as to raise living standards for the majority slightly while getting rid of the imperialists and their parasitic domestic lackeys.

Those are necessary steps to begin real development...of modern capitalism.


I do not think that Marx&#39;s predictions will be true (that the most developed nations will be the first to advance to socialism and then communism).

You (and anyone) always have the option to reject Marx.

But then you must come up with alternative explanations of social reality -- how we got where we are and where it is possible to go next.

If you think that the struggle is between those with "good intentions" and those with "bad intentions"...I think that you are going to have a difficult task to explain anything.


50 years will only condense material wealth more, leaving the imperialist countries of today better off, the &#39;developing&#39; nations worse.

If Marx was right, exactly the opposite will be the case.

We&#39;ll see. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

I suppose, redstar, that I am an optimist. I am no Leninist, nor do I want Leninist revolution. I am in favor of a communist revolution, and my argument is simply that as capitalism advances, not only will wealth become concentrated (as it has), but also the objeectively favorable conditions you are looking for disappear. Where there is misery, there are objectively favorable conditions for change undoubtedly. Show me a Brazilian peasant, stripped of his land, who is not favorable of change. Then, show me an average American businessman who is in favor of (radical) change. These simple facts are why I think revolution will very soon explode in the poor global south (atleast parts of it) and why it will not explode for a very, very long time in the rich global north (yes, I think your predicitions for Europe and America are wildly optimistic).

Now, let me clear something up. I am not &#39;anti-Marx&#39;, I only think that he was definitely wrong on quite a few areas. Like you, I think that he was wrong when he said socialism must occur before communism. I also think he was wrong when he said that the developed nations will be the first to advance to communism. And, as history has proven, Marx was way off in his predictions for when socialism would appear (and then communism).

There is no doubt that in some areas of Latin America, if the peasants controlled their own farms, their material existence would become much better than it is today. While this is primitive communism, it will atleast help. Now, the main trouble here is defending the commune, but I think any power would think twice before destroying a tiny commune, as international outrage would surely follow.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
...my argument is simply that as capitalism advances, not only will wealth become concentrated (as it has), but also the objectively favorable conditions you are looking for disappear.

Yes, the on-going concentration of capital is one of Marx&#39;s predictions that has "come true" and is truer with every passing year.

Marx argued that it was this very concentration of capital that created one of the favorable pre-conditions for proletarian revolution -- the capitalist class (especially its wealthiest sector at the very top) -- would get smaller and smaller while more and more people would be "pushed to the bottom" or at least near the bottom...would become proletarianized or join an ever growing "reserve army of the unemployed".

In modern terms, the bottom is in the service/temp industry at wages that cannot support anything even remotely approaching the "American way of life" as seen on the dummyvision. Or...the wretchedness of welfare.

And these are the "growing" sectors of the American economy...along with outright beggary, of course. I saw something new (to me) in that regard not long ago...entire families standing alongside the exit ramps of freeways with cans asking for money.

I therefore think that conditions favorable to proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries are continuing to develop.


These simple facts are why I think revolution will very soon explode in the poor global south (at least parts of it) and why it will not explode for a very, very long time in the rich global north (yes, I think your predictions for Europe and America are wildly optimistic).

I agree with you that the "global south" is "ripe for revolution"...but in most countries, these will be peasant revolutions that will create modern capitalist societies -- not communism.

I don&#39;t think a primitive "peasant-based" communism is a viable option any longer...if it ever was.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[metalero]

Guerrilla warfare rises according to the historical conditions and development of each particular country. There could be some general principles that lead guerrilla struggles right now ( fighting imperialism, peasantry self-defense, nationalism) but each struggle has its objective sources, and the development it follows is different across geography and time.
the cuban movement 26th of july led by Fidel Castro was the political background for the revolution, and taking into account the socio-economical conditions of cuba back then they used guerrilla warfare as the best tactic to defeat the old military apparatus. however, the movement was not strictly marxist; it was rather inspired in the ideals of nationhood, independence and development of Jose Marti, and also revolutionary marxism.
I don&#39;t know much about shining path, but i can tell you that FARC is not maoist. You have to study some colombian history to understand FARC ways and its development as a political-military organization. it was formed back in the sixties by poor farmers, mainly as a self-deffence force against the the persecution of the colombian oligarchy against any kind of collective organization in the country side. Using the excuse of fighting "independent republics" the military (and supported by anti-comunist policies from the pentagon) launched an attack to destroy these communities, and these farmers led by Manuel marulanda un-buried their weapons and formed the organization. They were instructed politically by members of the Colombian Comunist Party, so land-reform and socialism got together in the FARC agenda. Later they spread throughout all colombia poor-farming communities, while the CCP organized the working class in the cities. In the 80&#39;s the FARC and the CP stablished to use "all means of struggle" mixing political agitation in institutional ways and armed struggle. FARC not only defended farming communities against landowners and implemented land reform, but look forward to overthrow the goverment adding EP (ejercito del pueblo=army of the people) to its name. In 1984, after negotiation talks, they formed the political group called UNION PATRIOTICA. this was clearly a show of the working-class consciuosness of FARC, since the movement was formed not only by guerrillas members, but mostly by social movements, students, profesor, unions, the CCP and other leftist organizations...and...from 1984 to 1994 (date of the murder of the last and only comunist senator in colombia Manuel cepeda vargas) more than 4.000 thousand members of Union Patriotica were executed (the greatest political genocide in colombia violent history) by military and their death squads (AUC), including two presidential candidates (Jaime Pardo Leal and Bernardo jaramillo), congressman, mayors and simpathizers...the only members of UP who made it laive, are in exile, or with a rifle in the mountains..after this FARC launched an all out war agaisnt the goverment, and this is where they started killing innocent civilians in ruthless attacks on military controlled towns, the came plan colombia and all the mess we have now...so please do some research instead of oversimplifying social struggles in third world countries...
i want to apologize from spelling mistaken it is very difficult to express yourself thinking in spanish and writing in english :P

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by metalero
I don&#39;t know much about Shining Path, but I can tell you that FARC is not Maoist.

A fair point...people in FARC don&#39;t spend time studying Mao&#39;s Little Red Book.

Nevertheless, I would expect a victorious FARC to do what the Maoists did.

The objective material conditions in Colombia are "similar enough" to pre-revolutionary China, Vietnam, Cuba...that the outcome should also be similar.

It&#39;s the same things that all of these kinds of countries must do if they are to develop modern economies.

Land to the peasants; expropriate the old ruling class; kick the imperialists out; nationalize industry and natural resources; send people to school; create a public health system; build a modern infrastructure; etc.

When I call these movements "Maoist", I&#39;m speaking in general terms of what must be done -- not necessarily in a literal sense that they all "read Mao" and "follow him".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Colombia]

Just wanted to point out that FARC rebels are taught how to read and write. Afterwards they take lessons in Marxism-Leninism so saying they are Maoist, Stalinist or whatever is wrong.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 23 2005, 10:02 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 23 2005, 10:02 AM)
anomaly
...my argument is simply that as capitalism advances, not only will wealth become concentrated (as it has), but also the objectively favorable conditions you are looking for disappear.

Yes, the on-going concentration of capital is one of Marx&#39;s predictions that has "come true" and is truer with every passing year.

Marx argued that it was this very concentration of capital that created one of the favorable pre-conditions for proletarian revolution -- the capitalist class (especially its wealthiest sector at the very top) -- would get smaller and smaller while more and more people would be "pushed to the bottom" or at least near the bottom...would become proletarianized or join an ever growing "reserve army of the unemployed".

In modern terms, the bottom is in the service/temp industry at wages that cannot support anything even remotely approaching the "American way of life" as seen on the dummyvision. Or...the wretchedness of welfare.

And these are the "growing" sectors of the American economy...along with outright beggary, of course. I saw something new (to me) in that regard not long ago...entire families standing alongside the exit ramps of freeways with cans asking for money.

I therefore think that conditions favorable to proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries are continuing to develop.


These simple facts are why I think revolution will very soon explode in the poor global south (at least parts of it) and why it will not explode for a very, very long time in the rich global north (yes, I think your predictions for Europe and America are wildly optimistic).

I agree with you that the "global south" is "ripe for revolution"...but in most countries, these will be peasant revolutions that will create modern capitalist societies -- not communism.

I don&#39;t think a primitive "peasant-based" communism is a viable option any longer...if it ever was.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Redstar, what I mean by the concentration of wealth is a global concentration, not a national one. This is why nations like the US, Britain, France, Germany and the like will be less likely to revolutionaize as time goes by, because those are the nations in which wealth is concentrating. The losers in all of this liquidation and movement of capital are those who create the capital, the value: the workers and peasants of the global south. There is growing this &#39;reserve army&#39;, not in the north. And I think communism in the south must neccesarily begin as primitve peasant communism. Once other communes pop up (the idea is to spread communism, after all), communes can begin engaging in trade with one another, and this trade will slowly &#39;modernize&#39; the communes. Also, the &#39;first&#39; commune may have trade partners already in Cuba and Venezuela, that is, if the so-called socialists take interest in revolutionaries anymore. Only with an agrarian commune can the essentials of life be guarenteed. For example, in Britain, communism is simply impossible, since Birtain imports nearly half the food it consumes. Such a scenario can be avoided in the global south, especially Latin America (fertile land).

While on this topic, I&#39;ll ask about a little theory I&#39;ve been pondering. There are some in the geological community that say peak oil is close at hand, if we are not already experiencing it (peak oil is the time at which the maximum amount of oil can be drilled, after which only fewer and fewer amounts of oil can be drilled until the fuel disappears). Since all economies in the 1st world are completely dependent upon this particular fossil fuel, I think this may be the international trigger for which Marxists have been looking for some time (if the 1st world economies fall, the economies of the world will surely follow). What are your thoughts on the potential impact of the coming oil crisis?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
Redstar, what I mean by the concentration of wealth is a global concentration, not a national one.

It does not matter how much wealth is concentrated in the "north"...if the "northern" proletariat has no access to it.


What are your thoughts on the potential impact of the coming oil crisis?

Won&#39;t happen.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...NG46CMUPL60.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL)

Also see this collection...

Last Days -- The "End of the World" Scenarios (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083629387&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JC1]

It does not matter how much wealth is concentrated in the "north"...if the "northern" proletariat has no access to it.

But it does kill the reveloutionry potential of the local Capital&#39;s, thereby forcing the Working class in under-developed countries to take up the democratic tasks aswell as the Socialist tasks. This increases the spectre of Working Class rule in those countrys.

But I agree, this dosent cuase the creation of a Labour Aristocracy.


Won&#39;t happen.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...NG46CMUPL60.DTL

Also see this collection...

Last Days -- The "End of the World" Scenarios



I dealt with this here Bioregional anarchism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37572&st=0&#entry1291907253)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 24 2005, 09:23 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 24 2005, 09:23 AM)
anomaly
Redstar, what I mean by the concentration of wealth is a global concentration, not a national one.

It does not matter how much wealth is concentrated in the "north"...if the "northern" proletariat has no access to it.


What are your thoughts on the potential impact of the coming oil crisis?

Won&#39;t happen.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...NG46CMUPL60.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL)

Also see this collection...

Last Days -- The "End of the World" Scenarios (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083629387&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I find it rather odd how definitive you will: "it won&#39;t happen". This is not the 1970s, Redstar, simply because we have several billion new players in the oil market. India&#39;s and China&#39;s demand for oil has shot up recently, and there is absolutely no reason that the demand should suddenly stop. Of course the oil won&#39;t run out very soon (estimates are that it will run out around 2050), but I think peak oil may hit very soon, based on what some geologists say. Frankly, I trust their word on the matter over your&#39;s. All this means is that oil prices will rise, which they are doing now (perhaps it has already hit). In the 1970s, we simply did not see the high demand for oil we see now. If this continues to drive prices up, I think a worldwide economic recession is very likely.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
In the 1970s, we simply did not see the high demand for oil we see now. If this continues to drive prices up, I think a worldwide economic recession is very likely.

"Supply and demand", eh?

Well, you might be right; I don&#39;t worship at the "Church of the Free Market", myself.

But, by "free market reasoning", if high oil prices continue, then people will start switching to alternative technologies that use less or no oil.

Utilities will build nuclear fission plants to generate electricity that we will use to run electric cars, for example.

In my opinion, "peak oil rhetoric" is a propaganda tool of the oil industry to "justify" higher prices...and higher profits.

A "world-wide recession" is entirely possible, of course, without any regard to the price of oil...indeed, I also expect economic crises to become a common occurance later on in this century.

And it would not at all surprise me to see our rulers use "environmental" concerns to "justify" a declining standard-of-living for us.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:55 PM
[he objective material conditions in Colombia are "similar enough" to pre-revolutionary China, Vietnam, Cuba...that the outcome should also be similar.

It&#39;s the same things that all of these kinds of countries must do if they are to develop modern economies.

Land to the peasants; expropriate the old ruling class; kick the imperialists out; nationalize industry and natural resources; send people to school; create a public health system; build a modern infrastructure; etc.

When I call these movements "Maoist", I&#39;m speaking in general terms of what must be done -- not necessarily in a literal sense that they all "read Mao" and "follow him".
Sounds like an inaccurate term, then, since Maoists (that is, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party) - led only one revolution that did those things.

The common feature of those revolutions isn&#39;t ideology at all; its the political mobilization of millions of workers and peasants during the seizure of power and the economic transformations.

That&#39;s what separates those countries from, say, Egypt or Burma, where capitalist regimes have carried out extensive nationalizations for reasons of national industrial development...without anything that resembled a social revolution, even a bourgeois-democratic one, thoroughly smashing semifeudal patterns of landownership and so forth....

A feature notable absent in all the guerilla wars you place your hopes in, from Peru to Nepal to Iraq; on the contrary all those guerillas use terror against the majority of the population, to block mass organization which be contrary to their reactionary purposes.

So your current politics have no relationship to your interpretation of those revolutions...they do bear some relationship to the old Menshevik-Stalinist two stage theory of revolutions and their undying, though constantly disappointed quest for "progressive" bourgeois parties and leaders. To Mao&#39;s decades-long support for Chiang Kai-Shek, not to the revolution Mao eventually led.

And even more relationship to the current trend on the left, to substitute anti-American or merely anti-Bush politics for even the pretense of basing one&#39;s politics on the interests of the working class.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
...all those guerrillas use terror against the majority of the population, to block mass organization which be contrary to their reactionary purposes.

Ah, so that&#39;s their "reason", is it?

They want to keep the masses disorganized so they can attain power "all by themselves".

What truly diabolical monsters they are&#33; :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 25 2005, 09:10 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 25 2005, 09:10 AM)
anomaly
In the 1970s, we simply did not see the high demand for oil we see now. If this continues to drive prices up, I think a worldwide economic recession is very likely.

"Supply and demand", eh?

Well, you might be right; I don&#39;t worship at the "Church of the Free Market", myself.

But, by "free market reasoning", if high oil prices continue, then people will start switching to alternative technologies that use less or no oil.

Utilities will build nuclear fission plants to generate electricity that we will use to run electric cars, for example.

In my opinion, "peak oil rhetoric" is a propaganda tool of the oil industry to "justify" higher prices...and higher profits.

A "world-wide recession" is entirely possible, of course, without any regard to the price of oil...indeed, I also expect economic crises to become a common occurance later on in this century.

And it would not at all surprise me to see our rulers use "environmental" concerns to "justify" a declining standard-of-living for us.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Yes, and such actions would surely anger the public, especially the American public, which is used to life as it is now. If oil prices do go up, do not expect some new technology to replace the oil. Ethanol needs oil for production. We will not have a &#39;hydrogen powered car&#39; for a very long time, and electric cars are notoriously inefficient. Nuclear power plants have the capacity for disastrous results, as we&#39;ve seen before. We don&#39;t have too many options. Such a scenario could create revolutionary conditions quite quickly. But, of course, you&#39;re a cynic, and you don&#39;t buy into any of this. I&#39;ve wasted my time. I&#39;ll leave you to continue &#39;waiting&#39; for the &#39;Western European&#39; revolution (haha).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
If oil prices do go up, do not expect some new technology to replace the oil.

Why not?

Have you also a long list of "respected authorities" -- like DEPAVER -- who chorus "repent, for the end is near"?

The historical record of modern capitalism suggests rather strongly that when a resource becomes expensive and difficult to acquire, capital flows naturally into cheaper and more readily available substitutes.

We could, if pressed, return to a coal-fueled economy...but it&#39;s usually new kinds of resources that lead the way forward.

The "end-of-civilization" folks claim that all the other options are "no good", "too dangerous", "too expensive".

Like buggy manufacturers in 1900...or railroad executives in 1930.

It can&#39;t be done&#33;&#33;&#33;

Did you ever hear the one about the special British parliament commission formed to investigate the potential of the telephone back in the 1880s?

They reported to parliament that Britain had no need for such an innovation...as it already possessed a very large number of capable messenger boys. :lol:


But, of course, you&#39;re a cynic, and you don&#39;t buy into any of this.

Yes...it has saved me much grief and much disillusionment.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JC1]

Why not?

Have you also a long list of "respected authorities" -- like DEPAVER -- who chorus "repent, for the end is near"?

The historical record of modern capitalism suggests rather strongly that when a resource becomes expensive and difficult to acquire, capital flows naturally into cheaper and more readily available substitutes.

We could, if pressed, return to a coal-fueled economy...but it&#39;s usually new kinds of resources that lead the way forward.

The "end-of-civilization" folks claim that all the other options are "no good", "too dangerous", "too expensive".

Like buggy manufacturers in 1900...or railroad executives in 1930.

It can&#39;t be done&#33;&#33;&#33;

Did you ever hear the one about the special British parliament commission formed to investigate the potential of the telephone back in the 1880s?

They reported to parliament that Britain had no need for such an innovation...as it already possessed a very large number of capable messenger boys.

Just to bulid on this a little, up till the forty&#39;s, Ethnol was the fuel of rural america.