Maoism/M-L and the fetish of violence

[black magick hustla]

This was originaly posted in the Left Communist forum. I didnt want to reply to all of you people that are going to post "power comes from the barrel of the gun" or something equally cliche. however now i dont really care



---------------


First I am not a reformist, I believe in revolution.

However I have noticed a lot of the "communists" that are married with national liberation to have a love affair with violence.

Violence is a tool, in the same way Pacifism is. However, when it becomes a crystalized part of political ideology, it becomes dangerous. A lot of western maoists get a hard on when an american soldier gets blown up to bits, or when islamist shells fall on israeli, working class houses.

Part of why Maoists and many M-Ls love to see the slaughtering of workers is their fetish for "revolutionary" violence. It is obviously less boring than boycotting how our brothers and sisters are used as cannon fodder in the name of national liberation.

Again, I am not a reformist. I for example found it perfectly acceptable when american soldiers would blow up to pieces their own military officers etc. However in this case, it was useful.

Also, a lot of the "terrorist" groups, that were made up mostly by stupid college adventurists, were most of the time Maoist/third-worldist marxist leninism. A lot of maoists smell more like narodniks than theoretical descendants of Lenin and Marx, to be honest. It is no surprise "Sendero Luminoso" was founded by a peruvian college professor.

[Great Helmsman]

Exactly which "workers" are you talking about? These American soldiers and the Israeli "working class" both have something in common: they're oppressors.

Do you think Iraqis or Palestinians are getting too uppity? Are they violent fanatics too?

No Maoist is ever going to apologize for unconditionally supporting national liberation and opposing imperialism everywhere. That means opposing America on all levels. If this bothers you, then go pin some Support the Troops ribbons on the boys and bake them some apple pies or something.

[black magick hustla]

lol if you feel so bad for living in the first world why dont you commit suicide/move to the third world.

You don't get it. Its not like I care that much about the american troops, its the fact that you cheer for workers to die for their own national bourgeosie. To you is more of a question between nations than a question between classes.

[Great Helmsman]

Because I don't want to kill myself, or live on other end of imperialism.

I don't whine about how the overwhelming majority of "communists" are wrong about class, and who might as well be liberals for all I care. But every time I post, it's open season for trots, anarchists, and left "communists". Apparently anything is fair game then.

[black magick hustla]

Because I don't want to kill myself, or live on other end of imperialism.

I don't whine about how the overwhelming majority of "communists" are wrong about class, and who might as well be liberals for all I care. But every time I post, it's open season for trots, anarchists, and left "communists". Apparently anything is fair game then.

I dont get it. you whine about being an opressor? Is it ok for slave masters to whine?

You didn't answer my argument though.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That means opposing America on all levels.

http://tranxuanan.writer.2.googlepages.com/4-nixon_mao-21-feb-1972_TIME_AFP-get.jpg

[bezdomni]

I don't think the "fetishization of violence" exists any more broadly among Maoists or other Marxist-Leninists than it does among any other group of people that advocate violence as a possible solution to problems.

Show me a Maoist who fetishizes violence, and I will show you ten anarchists who do the exact same thing.

Anyway, a lot of times the "fetishization of violence" is something that we can't really avoid living in this world. No matter who you are, you probably want to see *somebody* get hurt. For example, I think it is awesome when rioters set fire to cop cars and stuff. I enjoy seeing things like that. I'm really not a violent or aggressive person, but because of the society we live in...it is somewhat gratifying to see certain people get hurt.

We should struggle against the unnecessary use of violence, but we should also be understanding that some oppressed people will/do view revolution as a tool for revenge against those have oppressed them.

[bezdomni]

http://tranxuanan.writer.2.googlepages.com/4-nixon_mao-21-feb-1972_TIME_AFP-get.jpg

I didn't know Nixon was a revolutionary communist! Good find, CDL!

[Great Helmsman]

I dont get it. you whine about being an opressor? Is it ok for slave masters to whine?

You didn't answer my argument though.
Huh?

Here's a shocker: workers are already dying thanks to FW capitalism and imperialism. What's that part in the Manifesto again? Something about workers having "nothing to lose but their chains"? The principal contradiction is between the first and third worlds. Exploiter classes in the former, exploited in the latter. National liberation shouldn't be written off or attacked because the movement doesn't have a party of your tendency at the forefront. Sorry, but that Trotskyist study circle isn't about to become the workers vanguard you envisaged.

This thread should just be closed. It's nothing but an attempt to troll and stir things up against the easy targets.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think the "fetishization of violence" exists any more broadly among Maoists or other Marxist-Leninists than it does among any other group of people that advocate violence as a possible solution to problems.

Show me a Maoist who fetishizes violence, and I will show you ten anarchists who do the exact same thing.

Anyway, a lot of times the "fetishization of violence" is something that we can't really avoid living in this world. No matter who you are, you probably want to see *somebody* get hurt. For example, I think it is awesome when rioters set fire to cop cars and stuff. I enjoy seeing things like that. I'm really not a violent or aggressive person, but because of the society we live in...it is somewhat gratifying to see certain people get hurt.

We should struggle against the unnecessary use of violence, but we should also be understanding that some oppressed people will/do view revolution as a tool for revenge against those have oppressed them.

Anarchists do fetishize violence but as Devrim said, its in another level.

I also think its awesome when rioters break shit etc but this is not the point.

i think that is in another level than when some maoist posts a thread about how he read in the news that a sect blew up four american soldiers. i sometimes feel that not only aesthetically, but maoist politics themselves surround "romantic violence". That is why a lot of the terrorist groups were either maoist or very maoist influenced marxist leninism. they shoot some some soldier/goverment officer/whatever and then they celebrate. I personally dont care much if some bigshot bureacrat gets blown up, but when your politics surround violence like that you end up doing stupid shit.

[black magick hustla]

Huh?

Here's a shocker: workers are already dying thanks to FW capitalism and imperialism. What's that part in the Manifesto again? Something about workers having "nothing to lose but their chains"? The principal contradiction is between the first and third worlds. Exploiter classes in the former, exploited in the latter. National liberation shouldn't be written off or attacked because the movement doesn't have a party of your tendency at the forefront. Sorry, but that Trotskyist study circle isn't about to become the workers vanguard you envisaged.

This thread should just be closed. It's nothing but an attempt to troll and stir things up against the easy targets.

first i am not a trot.

second i am probably more active than you.

third "nothing to lose but their chains" is pretty hyperbole. poeople have familes, their job, and their life to lose. very few people are as miserable as to "have nothing to lose buth their chains".

you dont understand my point. its not that my "tendency" is not in the forefront, its that workers are dying to protect the hides of their masters or new emerging masters. your analysis has no basis in class, its just "nations" against "nations".

besides imperialism is a world system and anti-imperialism has to be anti-capitalist or else it wont really be anti-imperialism at all. if the US collapses without socialist world revolution, another country would simply supercede it.

[black magick hustla]

also when the third worldist liberation army comes to storm america, how are they going to differentiate you from the other Amerikkkan pIg$?

[Winter]

I feel bad for any troops who go fight a war for imperialism. They and there families have to convince themselves they are doing the right thing. They buy the media/propaganda frenzy and take up nationalism to the extreme. They are the scapegoats/pawns of the powerful trying to become more powerful. The powerful have succesfully convinced these people what they are doing is good and noble, and to die for ones country is to die with honor. I know that military people and families have a rational mind to figure out for themselves that they are being manipulated, but the power of nationalism is too great an influence that it's hard to blame it all on the individual.

Even upon telling one of these people the truth, they will not believe. Especially for a military family that lost a relative in war. Even if there rational mind tells them "this war is pointless" they must convince themselves that it was for a good cause, or there relative would have died for nothing. We all know they are dying for nothing. Just to make the pocket-books of the powerful even more thicker.

It's very sad circumstances. To hear that another soldier died and that hundreds of Iraqis are dying on a daily basis is depressing and motivates me to want to change things even more so. The ones I trully blame are those in power. May they be sentenced to death. Those are the ones I want to see die. They are the true murderers.

If I'm too compassionate here, deal with it.

[Hiero]

lol if you feel so bad for living in the first world why dont you commit suicide/move to the third world.



So Marx, Engels, Lenin, nearly all socialist theorist should have killed theirselfs instead of whining? Alot of Communist (espically thoose in the acadamic system) live off expliotation. Yet they don't try and hide the truth of the situation. If the first world lives at the expense of the third world, first world Communist must expose this truth regardless of class position.

[Ismail]

Helmsman, if you haven't already, check your PM's.


It's very sad circumstances. To hear that another soldier died and that hundreds of Iraqis are dying on a daily basis is depressing and motivates me to want to change things even more so. The ones I trully blame are those in power. May they be sentenced to death. Those are the ones I want to see die. They are the true murderers.This is true, but the fact is that when these soldiers are firing upon those who are already "blessed" with one of the worst situations in life (poor, prone to disease/infections, nation has a life expectancy below 60 etc) then I believe that they should resist an imperialist attack on their nation, since it will pretty much be too late to suddenly go in and change things and expect the soldiers to suddenly stop shooting because when a war is unjustified then things like rape, completely unjustified murder and so on to all types of people of any age are common. War does bring out the worst in people, especially when it's against people they know deep down are hopeless.

On the other hand, people get angry when people die for nothing, so a war can actually help a working-class movement, and turn a national liberation/anti-imperialist war into a working-class struggle too.

[black magick hustla]

So Marx, Engels, Lenin, nearly all socialist theorist should have killed theirselfs instead of whining? Alot of Communist (espically thoose in the acadamic system) live off expliotation. Yet they don't try and hide the truth of the situation. If the first world lives at the expense of the third world, first world Communist must expose this truth regardless of class position.

Marx was poor as hell. Lenin didnt live on the backs of the people, and Engels...well you got me there.

[Wanted Man]

The ones I trully blame are those in power. May they be sentenced to death. Those are the ones I want to see die. They are the true murderers.
So you're fetishizing violence against these innocent people? You Maoist!

[KC]

Here's a shocker: workers are already dying thanks to FW capitalism and imperialism.

Here's a shocker: capitalism is imperialism.

What the hell is FW capitalism?


The principal contradiction is between the first and third worlds.

No it's not (http://hekmat.public-archive.net/en/0110en.html)

This is such a laughably childish analysis that it astounds me that so many can be so dumb to actually take it seriously.


Exploiter classes in the former, exploited in the latter.

Then please explain to me how the bourgeoisie of these "third world" countries are "exploited" and also explain to me how the proletariat in these "first world" countries are not.


National liberation shouldn't be written off or attacked because the movement doesn't have a party of your tendency at the forefront.

Of course not. It should be critically analysed and both supported and opposed based on that analysis.


" Before answering the question whether we should support the "opposition", we must understand... the class foundations and the class nature of this "opposition", (or Russian liberalism), and in what relation the development of the revolution and of the revolutionary classes stands to the position and interests of liberalism."
(Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.11, page 372)


This is true, but the fact is that when these soldiers are firing upon those who are already "blessed" with one of the worst situations in life (poor, prone to disease/infections, nation has a life expectancy below 60 etc) then I believe that they should resist an imperialist attack on their nation, since it will pretty much be too late to suddenly go in and change things and expect the soldiers to suddenly stop shooting because when a war is unjustified then things like rape, completely unjustified murder and so on to all types of people of any age are common. War does bring out the worst in people, especially when it's against people they know deep down are hopeless.

Of course, and we should be taking a two-sided position on this issue (in terms of the troops themselves). We should be supporting the right of the Iraqi people to their own national self determination while at the same time supporting the American working class through counter-recruitment efforts and exposing the truth of what life is like in the military.

[Holden Caulfield]

Marx was poor as hell. Lenin didnt live on the backs of the people, and Engels...well you got me there.

Marx lived off Engels...

anyhoo

Helmsman will in some way, probably through comsumerism, be an opressor, we cannot be apologists for where we are born or used the fact that we live in more developed nations as arguments, we want an international classless society.

[black magick hustla]

So you're fetishizing violence against these innocent people? You Maoist!


heh good try

instead why not try addressing the questions of national liberation, and seeing everything as a question of "nations"? I always see you saying all sorts of hilarious shit, but never making an argument.

[Wanted Man]

What is there to say, Marmot? Your thread is one big strawman. Do you expect people to seriously debate the "fact" that Maoists get hard-ons from seeing working people slaughtered?

[black magick hustla]

What is there to say, Marmot? Your thread is one big strawman. Do you expect people to seriously debate the "fact" that Maoists get hard-ons from seeing working people slaughtered?

Its not a big strawman. Explain me why maoist groups tend to have the most violent imagery in their logos/publications etc? Why do the orthodox, marxist-leninist communist parties don't use a lot of imagery of stupid guns? Why are there so many "left" terrorist groups of maoist/left nationalist origins that think that blowing up some soldier is "class struggle"? Or how it was a maoist who posted a thread some weeks ago about how the glorious phillipine maoist army "killed" four soldiers? Or how, for the matter, we have a thread in the propaganda forum about some maoist getting enthralled about how many jewish soldiers get killed by the PFLP? Class struggle is organizing workers, students, etc against capital, its not a question of one nation against the other. I never see maoists posting threads about class struggle, strikes, mobilizations against capital. Just your good old kill whiteys threads.

As Devrim said, you just give a nationalist a red flag (or any flag for that matter) and a gun, and you have westerners spreading their legs for it.

[RNK]

Explain me why maoist groups tend to have the most violent imagery in their logos/publications etc?

You mean like images of workers and peasants rising up against state oppression, smashing symbols of capital and bourgeois rule? Oh, those are so violent.


Why do the orthodox, marxist-leninist communist parties don't use a lot of imagery of stupid guns?

They're too busy trying to get votes in the next election.


Why are there so many "left" terrorist groups of maoist/left nationalist origins that think that blowing up some soldier is "class struggle"?

It's quite simple, and something Marx and Lenin "stumbled" upon quite some time ago.

The state = the oppression of the working class.
The police and the army = the armed tool of the state.


Or how it was a maoist who posted a thread some weeks ago about how the glorious phillipine maoist army "killed" four soldiers?

Better than threads about how the glorious [insert western communist party here] won an election. Wait... that doesn't happen...


Or how, for the matter, we have a thread in the propaganda forum about some maoist getting enthralled about how many jewish soldiers get killed by the PFLP?

I'm enthralled when Israeli (not Jewish) soldiers are killed by the PFLP.


Class struggle is organizing workers, students, etc against capital, its not a question of one nation against the other.

Tell that to the thousands of orphaned children and thousands of parents who've had their children killed by the IDF.


I never see maoists posting threads about class struggle, strikes, mobilizations against capital.

Then you're an idiot. First of all, everything you've mentioned is about class struggle. It is about the most exploited people on the planet rising up to defend themselves and destroy capitalism. They, unlike you and I, do not have the good graces to be able to happily stroll to the nearest election office and uselessly vote for some deranged defunct party which has seen declining turnouts for the past 70 years. They face the most brutal and exacting oppression in their countries; in Nepal, in the Philippines, in Bhutan and India and Peru and Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran, Communists are arrested, brutalized and killed. Throughout South America, reactionary governments, backed by the US, have time and time again proven their willingness to slaughter thousands of people to ensure the continuation of their reactionary, right-wing regimes. While i'm sure you've romanticized in your head about the irrepressable will of freedom or whatever, I doubt you'd be willing to stroll through an execution squad on your way to cast a ballot for your favorite watered-down beauraucrats.

Take for instance the strikes called for by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), urging the people to bring the capitalist economy to its knees to force the government into submission to worker's rule. I didn't see you lifting a fucking finger to support that. Or the weekly strikes, mass mobilizations, rallies and protests that go on throughout the 3rd world. No, you don't care about any of that. You're nothing more than a white chauvanist piece of shit, sitting high up in your priviledged pedestal, feeling you have the moral high ground to dictate to how people whose suffering goes beyond what you can even imagine should carry out their own struggles.

So go on and pander to your pathetic little western values of non-violence and peaceful co-existence and "revolution without the r". Fact of the matter is, jokes like you have tried and failed for 80 years to make any change, and you have the audacity to criticize men and women who do more than sit on their ass and be "activists" once every 4 years to cast empty votes for some disillusioned class-traitor who thinks capital can be smashed by manipulating the very system created to protect it. You're living in a priviledged dream world. I trust those who are on the front lines of the global revolution, fighting the most focused and visceral exploitation and oppression, a hell of a lot more than I trust a simple-minded priviledged pencil-pusher like you.

[black magick hustla]

woah i think i found someone's soft spot

i am busy right now but expect in around 30 mins a huge post

[Leo]

So go on and pander to your pathetic little western values:rolleyes: The irony...

[Random Precision]

The principal contradiction is between the first and third worlds. Exploiter classes in the former, exploited in the latter.

Congratulations! You're not a Marxist!

[black magick hustla]

You're nothing more than a white chauvanist piece of shit, sitting high up in your priviledged pedestal, feeling you have the moral high ground to dictate to how people whose suffering goes beyond what you can even imagine should carry out their own struggles.
.

When I see myself in the mirror, I see many things, but I don't see white :laugh:

Congratulations, you created a huge strawman against me. Appart from me opposing parliamentary action, the "orthodox marxist-leninist" parties, and having a white dude patronize me about being white (which I am not) or about western values which I really dislike, you misunderstood my position.

Its not about "the most opressed" rising against capitalism. I am not patronizing them, I am protesting the fact that you people gleefully cheer for their death under the hands of their own national bourgeosie. You people are so disgustingly honest about that that you already talk about "new democracy" and class collaboration with the "opressed bourgeosie"

The most "opressed" carring out their struggle? What are you talking about? All the stupid little guerilllas are always commanded by university drop outs and comfortable intellectuals. They are the people misleading hundreds and thousands to die for the interests of the "natiion", without understanding that the worker has no country. That there cannot be anti-imperialism without anti-capitalism, That there is no progressive bourgeosie any more. Worst, because the only thing they talk about is "revolutionary violence", they stop knowing who are there enemies anymore, and they end up like caricatures like Sendero Luminoso.

Its you who do not live in reality. It is you who deson't understand that peasants and workers are not "plastic soldiers" that can just be disposed for the sake of revolution. There are times when violence is needed, but its not as simple as telling people to throw away their families and their life for a battle that isnt really theirs.

Funny thing that "peaceful coexistance" is more in par with maoist politics than my politics. Afte rall, it is they blathering about new democracy bullshit and it was Mao who sided with Nixon.

Los obreros no tienen patria!

[Entrails Konfetti]

Sing it brother!

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is not about 'the most oppressed' carrying on the struggle, it has to do with dealing a blow to Anglo-American imperialism, which is, by far, the social force that is preventing socialist revolution from happening.

[Zurdito]

You don't get it. Its not like I care that much about the american troops, its the fact that you cheer for workers to die for their own national bourgeosie. To you is more of a question between nations than a question between classes.

Let me say that I don't believe anything good has ever come out of Maoism, and the Maoists on this forum often strike me as being from another planet.

However, I don't see how you can say that Iraqi, Afghan or Palestinian resistances are dying for their national bourgeoisie. That really does sound like US propaganda. Those people are dying for self-determination. In fact in all three of those nations mentioned, the struggle has now taken on anti-domestic bourgeoisie character more clearly than ever before. In fact if you don't support the Iraqi, afghan or Palestinian resistances, then effectively you are failing to supportthose nations resistance to their own agent bourgeoisie.

Unless you can provide real evidence that any of those movements are in any significant way bourgeois, rather than bureaucratic/petty-bourgeois/stalinistic.

Edit: and also, why the anarchist hatred of intellectuals. Education is the tool that sets us free. The borugeoisie wants us to hate intellectuals, because they are the ones who rise out of the masses and present new ways of thinking. Your anti-intellectualism really strikes me as primitive.

[BobKKKindle$]

As well as exhibiting a love of pointless violence, Maoists are also hypocritical; there is a clear divergence between what Maoists say ("working with the world's most exploited" etc) and how Maoists act. Let's take a closer look at some of the claims RNK made in his post:


Take for instance the strikes called for by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), urging the people to bring the capitalist economy to its knees to force the government into submission to worker's rule.

Workers power? The CPN-M has recently indicated that major state enterprises will not be nationalized and are promoting a lengthy period of capitalist development, despite the prevalence of abject poverty in Nepal - this is a betrayal of the Nepalese working class, as the Maoists command popular support and could seize control of the country, and yet they choose to restrict their demands to bourgeois rights, such as the abolition of the monarchy and the creation of a constituent assembly - this is indicative of the utter bankruptcy of the "stageist" interpretation of economic development, which has been used to justify political opportunism and cooperation with the bourgeoisie across the third world.

This same organization also claims that homosexuality is a product of capitalist decadence - is this something you support? Is this fighting for the rights of the worlds oppressed? Is this a genuine socialist position, or evidence of the irrelevance of Maoism to contemporary politics?


Throughout South America, reactionary governments, backed by the US, have time and time again proven their willingness to slaughter thousands of people to ensure the continuation of their reactionary, right-wing regimes.

The PRC was one of the only "socialist" countries to maintain diplomatic relations with Chile after Pinochet's seizure of power - recognizing a country's government is an implicit acceptance of that government's moral legitimacy.


It's quite simple, and something Marx and Lenin "stumbled" upon quite some time ago.

Marx also criticized the use of individual terrorism as a strategy for political change - isolated attacks on the state apparatus, in the form of assassination and the destruction of property, are useless, when the groups making such attacks are comprised of petty-bourgeois intellectuals - as was the case with the upper echelons of the Red Army, prior to the seizure of power in 1949. Unlike the October Revolution, the Chinese "revolution" was not based on the self-emancipation of the working class - by the time Mao took power, workers comprised only a very small proportion of the party cadre.


Or the weekly strikes, mass mobilizations, rallies and protests that go on throughout the 3rd world.

The Maoist policy of collaboration with the bourgeoisie has led to Maoist parties discouraging industrial action, especially in the case of CCP's popular front with the Koumintang, firstly during the 1926 Northern Expedition (which ended in a purge of communists and a crackdown on workers organisations) and later during the anti-imperialist struggle against the Japanese invaders.

In short, Maoists do not support workers struggles and Mao made no contributions to Maoist theory.

[black magick hustla]

Let me say that I don't believe anything good has ever come out of Maoism, and the Maoists on this forum often strike me as being from another planet.

However, I don't see how you can say that Iraqi, Afghan or Palestinian resistances are dying for their national bourgeoisie. That really does sound like US propaganda. Those people are dying for self-determination. In fact in all three of those nations mentioned, the struggle has now taken on anti-domestic bourgeoisie character more clearly than ever before. In fact if you don't support the Iraqi, afghan or Palestinian resistances, then effectively you are failing to supportthose nations resistance to their own agent bourgeoisie.

Unless you can provide real evidence that any of those movements are in any significant way bourgeois, rather than bureaucratic/petty-bourgeois/stalinistic.

Edit: and also, why the anarchist hatred of intellectuals. Education is the tool that sets us free. The borugeoisie wants us to hate intellectuals, because they are the ones who rise out of the masses and present new ways of thinking. Your anti-intellectualism really strikes me as primitive.

it doesnt matter if there is concrete bourgeois capital backing those movements, but the fact that they are for "self-determination" (although i am almost sure there is but i am too lazy to investigate right now), a thing that doesnt exists any more in this advanced age of world imperialism, objectively furthers the interest of a bourgeois faction or of an emerging national bourgeosie.

communists agitate against inter-bourgeoise conflicts.

self-determination is an empty slogan used to detourn class action against masters against other workers.

i dont hate intellectuals, but i find it funny that RNK talks a lot about the "wretched of the earth" with his silly christian "revolutionary" theory, but at the same time, doesnt realize that it is not the "wretched" that are in command of those movements.

[Herman]

No it's not (http://www.anonym.to/?http://hekmat.public-archive.net/en/0110en.html)

This is such a laughably childish analysis that it astounds me that so many can be so dumb to actually take it seriously.I hate it when they say that the first world workers aren't exploited and that they are part of the "oppressors".


So go on and pander to your pathetic little western values of non-violence and peaceful co-existence and "revolution without the r". Fact of the matter is, jokes like you have tried and failed for 80 years to make any change, and you have the audacity to criticize men and women who do more than sit on their ass and be "activists" once every 4 years to cast empty votes for some disillusioned class-traitor who thinks capital can be smashed by manipulating the very system created to protect it. You're living in a priviledged dream world. I trust those who are on the front lines of the global revolution, fighting the most focused and visceral exploitation and oppression, a hell of a lot more than I trust a simple-minded priviledged pencil-pusher like you.Ho ho ho! Mr. revolutionary fighter here is using a nice strawman!

So, good sir, how much blood have you shed in the name of revolution? I wonder, truly. Why are you even here? Shouldn't you be dying right now? Shooting your gun perhaps? Letting that beard grow, as a sign of a true revolutionary?

So narrow-minded are you, that you dismiss the gains made by the working class in Europe and the USA (not that many in the latter). Who were the ones who got the trade unions working? Who were the ones who shed blood for a small, if not insignificant, amount of wealth redistribution? Who forced the social-democrats, the reformists you claim to be against, to nationalize vital industries after the Second World War? And who are the ones in France who protest against privatisation and cuts in their salaries and rights?

You have this distored view of the first world, where everyone is filthy rich, millionaires investing, buying condos here and there... you could not be so wrong. Why don't you visit London? You'll notice there isn't much difference between London and some of the third world cities.

So dispense yourself from that ultra-maoist crap. Who are you to be talking about workers dying for the cause? What sacrifices have you made? How do you expect Western socialists to grab guns and simply organize guerrilla wars all over Europe? How would that be effective? What would the working class gain from that? You know nothing of the situation here and can only guess based on stereotypes and misinformation.

[Winter]

I get what the Third Worldist mean when they say that Americans have been bought off. But I don't think it's fair to say that the American worker is the enemy. I think that the American worker is a victim as well, not by physical violence but by manipulation.

Americans equate communism with terrorism and don't take it seriously because they've never actually studied it. The propaganda system has prevailed over them. I must agree though, that the American workers really don't seem to be wanting a social revolution anytime soon and it lies with the people of third world countries, that see first-hand what American imperialism does, to take action.

The majority of Americans are drowning in consumer culture while a child in Mexico starves to death. Americans are not the ones who will institute social change, just take a look around.

[Random Precision]

Mao made no contributions to Maoist theory.

:lol:

Sorry Bob, I know you meant "Marxist theory", but that cracks me up. Otherwise great post. :)

Herman, I think RNK is well appraised of the situation in the "first world"- he lives in Canada IIRC. It is funny, though, that we never see any "third worldists" who are actually from the third world. Just more evidence that "third worldism" is nothing more than white-guilt inspired middle-class intellectual liberalism run amok.

[Random Precision]

I get what the Third Worldist mean when they say that Americans have been bought off. But I don't think it's fair to say that the American worker is the enemy. I think that the American worker is a victim as well, not by physical violence but by manipulation.

Americans equate communism with terrorism and don't take it seriously because they've never actually studied it. The propaganda system has prevailed over them. I must agree though, that the American workers really don't seem to be wanting a social revolution anytime soon and it lies with the people of third world countries, that see first-hand what American imperialism does, to take action.

The majority of Americans are drowning in consumer culture while a child in Mexico starves to death. Americans are not the ones who will institute social change, just take a look around.

I disagree, comrade- the American people have great revolutionary potential, but they have lost their conception of class politics because of the Reaganite and neoliberal onslaught on workers rights, combined with the complete capitulation of the existing union movement to those forces. The job we have is to help reacquaint the working class here with the class struggle. While it may seem far off, a revolution in the United States would be an incredible event and go a long way toward building international socialism. We must not be defeatists.

[Labor Shall Rule]

To me, Maoism is red-colored nationalism.

Prachanda has wrote that he wants to abolish key domestic feudal institutions, and introduce a 'mixed' economy that would "not blindly follow western liberalism." To me, that is progressive.

Nepal will become a tiny bourgeois republic, and as so, new opportunities will be opened for revolutionaries as the class struggle hops to the next stage. The Maoists, and their struggle for the formation of a Constituent Assembly, should be support wholeheartedly as so.

[Winter]

I disagree, comrade- the American people have great revolutionary potential, but they have lost their conception of class politics because of the Reaganite and neoliberal onslaught on workers rights, combined with the complete capitulation of the existing union movement to those forces. The job we have is to help reacquaint the working class here with the class struggle. While it may seem far off, a revolution in the United States would be an incredible event and go a long way toward building international socialism. We must not be defeatists.

Yes, they do have revolutionary potential, but bringing class consciousness to there attention is going to be really hard. Communism has succesfully been demonized and everybody has just enough not to complain. People don't take us seriously, plus every socialist organization is so partisan and bickers about minor issues. It seems to me if socialism was going to be even remotely successful we would have to wait for some kind of catastrophic event, like another great depression.

I've been exploring this concept of Third Worldism and it doesn't seem like a bad idea. Although it comes off as being extremely racist against anyone of Europeon descent, making you feel guilty about something you were born into. I don't think this is the right way to go about things, epecially when it comes to demonizing your average American who doesn't know better.

I don't see a contradiction between all these methods. I'm not against any of them. We need all these ideas to find a unifying solution.

[#FF0000]

I don't think the "fetishization of violence" exists any more broadly among Maoists or other Marxist-Leninists than it does among any other group of people that advocate violence as a possible solution to problems.

Show me a Maoist who fetishizes violence, and I will show you ten anarchists who do the exact same thing.

This.

One may believe that Maoists or Leninists or Hoxhaists or Anarchists or ecetera-ists are violent, but the fact of the matter is that there's a good deal of violence-fetishism all around. That's what should be addressed. I'm no fan of Mao Zedong, or his Thought, but this is just sectarian nonsense.

[Zurdito]

[QUOTE]it doesnt matter if there is concrete bourgeois capital backing those movements,

of course it does! you can't say they are fighting for their national bourgeoisie, if the national bourgeoisie opposes them. That doesn't mean you necessarilly have to support these struggles but it's pretty slanderous to call the Iraqi, Afghan and Palestinian resistances bourgeois. In all those cases today, the state - the body for carrying out the will of the national borugeoisie - is working for the imperialists against the resistance.



but the fact that they are for "self-determination" (although i am almost sure there is but i am too lazy to investigate right now), a thing that doesnt exists any more in this advanced age of world imperialism, objectively furthers the interest of a bourgeois faction or of an emerging national bourgeosie.


It may objectively further the development of a national borugeoisie, that's true. It may not. However, you need to remember that we do not jsut put a minus where our enemies put a plus.

I don't see how you can say that there is no such thing as self-determination. Don't you acknowledge a difference between a country which is occupied by foreign troops and one which isn't? Nobody is saying "self-determination" equals complete independence, it simply one part of the struggle for the right of a nation to democratically express its wishes. Clearly that can't happen if that nation is occupied by a foreign power when it opposes their interests.

Also, you are right, it cannot happen when the state represses the masses. Or when there is coercion from stronger foreign powers in a non-military sense. So yes as we both know, real dmeocracy is impossible under capitalism. But struggles progress quantatively, and we should be on the side of the masses in any state when they resist any form of opression. It's a progressive fight.

There is not a revolutionary consciousness on a mass basis in any state in the world right now. Will you therefore support no struggles for any demands anywhere? How about democratic demands in Paksitan and Burma, do you support them, despite the fact that they are tailed by sections of the domestic and imperialist bourgeoisie too? If you support some kind of immediate democratic demands then, why not others, like the right to fight the presence of foreign troops in ones community.

I don't know about you but I'm in favour of national communtiies under socialism managing themselves within federations. I would not support the right of one nation to impose on another, rather that all struggles should be settled by the masses within a nation (and if the struggle cannot mobilise the masses, then this in itself shows that it would be reactionary to impose on them from the outside what they themselves do not mobilise for). So as part of that transitional demand - equal democratic rights for the citizens all nations to manage their own state - I would add the immediate demand that no state should have the right to impose is presence on the masses of another state. Therefore it follows logically that I support the right of the masses of that state to resist the presence of occupying troops.

Now I personally believe in drawing a difference here between imperialist and semi-colonial states, ie in the former we would support only working class resistance and not state led resistance, and try to link the working classes in the two countries, whereas in the latter I would provide unconditional support to the occupied semi-colonial country. But either way, we should all agree on the right to at least support mass resistance which goes against its own state, as the ones we are talking about represent.


communists agitate against inter-bourgeoise conflicts.

We agitate against the bourgeoisie. That can happen within the conflcit itself. What you are describing is not agitating against the bourgeoisie, it is agitating against the masses. You aren't trying to split them from the bourgeoisie, you are just condemning them as puppets. Which pretty much takes away any agency from them and sees them as helpless. It's the other way round though , in reality: semi-colonial bourgeoisies at times are so weak that they have to tail the resistance to imperialism of the masses, or be swept aside.

There isn't much historical precedence for what you're saying. Marx and Engels didn't necessarilly agitate against inter-bourgeois conflicts. I understand that they were alive at a qualitatively different time, but, I'm just not sure where you draw your assertion from other than the reductive logic that you are the true communist to begin with. Do you not count the Bolsheviks as communists for example? If not which actual mass revolutionary movements are you referring to, which shared your views?



I dont hate intellectuals, but i find it funny that RNK talks a lot about the "wretched of the earth" with his silly christian "revolutionary" theory, but at the same time, doesnt realize that it is not the "wretched" that are in command of those movements

Fair enough.

[Great Helmsman]

first i am not a trot.

second i am probably more active than you.

third "nothing to lose but their chains" is pretty hyperbole. poeople have familes, their job, and their life to lose. very few people are as miserable as to "have nothing to lose buth their chains".

you dont understand my point. its not that my "tendency" is not in the forefront, its that workers are dying to protect the hides of their masters or new emerging masters. your analysis has no basis in class, its just "nations" against "nations".

besides imperialism is a world system and anti-imperialism has to be anti-capitalist or else it wont really be anti-imperialism at all. if the US collapses without socialist world revolution, another country would simply supercede it.
Organizing the FW mAsses is a futile activity. The international proletariat and peasantry, along with their 'petty-bourgeois' allies, are located in the third world. You say you're not a reformist, but you also say you have a problem with the oppressed forming a broad united front to oppose imperialist terror. With the exception of the oppressed nation's ruling wealthy and comprador classes, the class interests of the third world's so-called bourgeoisie are closely aligned with its peasants and proletariat. Their 'emerging masters' have a common cause in opposing imperialism and all imperialist nations, principally the U$.

[Great Helmsman]

Here's a shocker: capitalism is imperialism.

What the hell is FW capitalism?
...
No it's not (http://hekmat.public-archive.net/en/0110en.html)

This is such a laughably childish analysis that it astounds me that so many can be so dumb to actually take it seriously.
...
Then please explain to me how the bourgeoisie of these "third world" countries are "exploited" and also explain to me how the proletariat in these "first world" countries are not.

Capitalism in the first world is imperialism. Oour entire economies are based on parasitism. The overwhelming majority of FW 'workers' receive wages far above the value of their labour to do unproductive work. So how is this possible? Well 'workers' in the FW are bought off with superprofits stolen from the third world. What you believe are proletariat, are actually materially better off than the average third world petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. Not to mention we also benefit from cheap consumer goods (courtesy of you-know-who), state services (thanks imperialism!), and a government that will start murdering for us when the rest of the world gets starts acting up.

Any global redistribution of wealth would be bad news for us people. It's pure fantasy to think that the rich capitalists have enough to raise everyones living standards. [/quote]




Of course not. It should be critically analysed and both supported and opposed based on that analysis.


" Before answering the question whether we should support the "opposition", we must understand... the class foundations and the class nature of this "opposition", (or Russian liberalism), and in what relation the development of the revolution and of the revolutionary classes stands to the position and interests of liberalism."
(Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.11, page 372)

Maoists believe in uncompromising struggle against imperialism. When a country comes under attack by the imperialists, then it is essential for communists to stand unequivocally on the side of those oppressed. For example, this means supporting Iran and the Iraqi insurgency in the face of U$ aggression.

[Zurdito]

Capitalism in the first world is imperialism. Oour entire economies are based on parasitism. The overwhelming majority of FW 'workers' receive wages far above the value of their labour to do unproductive work.

Why would a capitalist employ a worker at a loss? Why not just pay him to go on holiday?

There may be small scope for a managerial class, but entire economies of tens of millions of people?

And if this work is unproductive, why are capitalists in the developed world constantly trying to increase working hours? Why would you want to increase the rate of your own loss?



Any global redistribution of wealth would be bad news for us people. It's pure fantasy to think that the rich capitalists have enough to raise everyones living standards.


They have the means to produce enoug, and a socialsit economy would gear technology and production to more efficiently developing the MOP and slant this towards areas for human benefit. So your logic is pretty formal, as we do not fight to simply redistribute the wealth that may exist at any one time, but to create a new future for humanity.

[Winter]

This thread has been very helpful to me. It seems a lot of these Third Worldist want to start some kind of crusade against white people. Nothing can be farther from Marxism than a race war.

We as Marxist/Leftist already know the damage that the US has done. But to say that the American worker is an oppressor is just laughable. The American worker and soldier are victims of there enviroment, not somekind of well-informed overlord waiting to take advantage of the poor living in third world countries. We're all in the same boat.

As I stated earlier, it's very hard to convince a typical American worker to join us, but that does not make the American worker an enemy!

ALL proletariats of the world must unite. Not just those living in third world countries.

How exactly does this concept of third worldism fit in with Maoism? I've been reading the Red Book and haven't found a word about it.

[black magick hustla]

Their 'emerging masters' have a common cause in opposing imperialism and all imperialist nations, principally the U$.

Yeah, i imagine landlords and "national" industrialists have the same interests as the people they exploit :lol:. Now where have i heard that....

[Axel1917]

I disagree, comrade- the American people have great revolutionary potential, but they have lost their conception of class politics because of the Reaganite and neoliberal onslaught on workers rights, combined with the complete capitulation of the existing union movement to those forces. The job we have is to help reacquaint the working class here with the class struggle. While it may seem far off, a revolution in the United States would be an incredible event and go a long way toward building international socialism. We must not be defeatists.

Given the utter lack of universal healthcare, workplace rights far behind those of Europe, expensive university, a recession around the corner (and eventually a deep slump), constant union sell outs, etc., things in the USA can explode when people least expect it. The main thing that needs to be done is for the working class to learn from their own experience that the Democrats are a right-wing, pro-capitalist party. Once this is done (they will likely win this year), people are really going to start questioning things and look for a way out that does not involve the capitalist parties. Things can change rapidly over here, and we must be ready for it.

I am sure that there are Maoists that have a violence fetish. Most of the ones that do are probably juveniles as well.


This thread has been very helpful to me. It seems a lot of these Third Worldist want to start some kind of crusade against white people. Nothing can be farther from Marxism than a race war.

We as Marxist/Leftist already know the damage that the US has done. But to say that the American worker is an oppressor is just laughable. The American worker and soldier are victims of there enviroment, not somekind of well-informed overlord waiting to take advantage of the poor living in third world countries. We're all in the same boat.

As I stated earlier, it's very hard to convince a typical American worker to join us, but that does not make the American worker an enemy!

ALL proletariats of the world must unite. Not just those living in third world countries.

How exactly does this concept of third worldism fit in with Maoism? I've been reading the Red Book and haven't found a word about it.

This is a result of Mao's Three Worlds "Theory" being carried to its logical conclusion. It basically states that the powerful "first world" nations are the least exploited, going down to the "second world" and the "third world" being the least exploited. Followers of this "theory" often support alliances with reactionary classes and nations as long as they are of the "less exploited" type.

Many holding the MIM line about "reactionary US white workers" are hypocrites: MIM is largely composed of white middle class college students. Every person holding this line tends to be a self-hating white person living in places like "AmeriKKKa.":lol:

[redflag32]

[quote]Violence is a tool, in the same way Pacifism is. However, when it becomes a crystalized part of political ideology, it becomes dangerous.

Agreed, and to be honest, all of my M-L comrades think the same.


A lot of western maoists get a hard on when an american soldier gets blown up to bits,

And why shouldnt they? Just because they might be working class doesn't mean we should not enjoy seeing the destruction of the reactionary organisation they are aligned to. Do you not feel a little tingle when you see a Fash getting a kick up the hole? He is working class but his ideology and organisation is not, so its ok to take delight from seeing him/her get a thump. well as long as it doesnt get to the "hard-on" stage you imply,which i think is a bit far fetched.


or when islamist shells fall on israeli, working class houses.

I know nobody who would take delight in such an act. Maybe they can understand why it hapens in the bigger picture, but ive never seen or heard anyone get excited when ordinary working class innocent people are killed. The way you linked American soldiers and innocent israeli people is un-fair. They are two totally differet sets of people.




Part of why Maoists and many M-Ls love to see the slaughtering of workers is their fetish for "revolutionary" violence. It is obviously less boring than boycotting how our brothers and sisters are used as cannon fodder in the name of national liberation.

And how do you suppose we bring democracy to a world wide level without first bringing democracy on a national level? Those who give their lives for national liberation are doing so in order to bring democracy one step further along its course to internationalism.

People died for the right of people to join unions, was their lives used as cannon fodder by the middle class who were an integral part of this particular struggle or were their lives given so that humanity could progress one small step closer to full democracy?

[RNK]

This is a result of Mao's Three Worlds "Theory" being carried to its logical conclusion. It basically states that the powerful "first world" nations are the least exploited, going down to the "second world" and the "third world" being the least exploited. Followers of this "theory" often support alliances with reactionary classes and nations as long as they are of the "less exploited" type.

So both the first world and the third world is least exploited, and followers of this theory support alliances with the least exploited? Your post doesn't make sense.

The "Three Worlds Theory" is accurate; levels of exploitation decline in relation to the industrial development of a country. What is inaccurate is the silly belief that understanding this amounts to declaring a war against white 1st world workers on behalf of non-white 3rd world workers. All workers are oppressed; it's idiocy, however, to reject the fact that many workers in the first world are supportive of the exploitation of the third world. The knowledge of the link between capital and politics, between the war in Iraq and Halliburton, between oil and war, are no secret in the United States, and yet those most responsible for it have no shortage of supporters and no shortage of workers from every strata who fully support capitalism and its actions. Ironically, the level of support rises as yearly income rises.