Maoism/M-L and the fetish of violence

  1. black magick hustla
    black magick hustla
    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.

    I posted this in the left communist forum because I don't want to deal with "lol ur a reformist" bullshit.
  2. Devrim
    Devrim
    I agree with this. I think that there is a fetishism with violence amongst many sections of the left. With many of them all you have to do to get them to forget class politics is to wrap a nationalist in a red flag, and give her a gun. To be honest the flag doesn't even need to be red anymore.

    I think some anarchists fetishise violence too, but on a totally different level.

    Devrim
  3. komintern
    komintern
    In fact you could also explain this tendency of violence for violence because they are away from the class struggle. I used to be a Maoist a long time ago and I could see with my own eyes that militants coming from a petite bourgeoisie background have a tendancy to act as spoiled children. In their case scenario they are grown ups who like the smell of powder.
  4. Decolonize The Left
    Decolonize The Left
    Class struggle is a long, difficult, process. It requires patience and devotion.

    Violence is a short, simple, easy act - one which requires little thought and patience. If history has taught us anything, it could be that violence is easiest - and hence most often used...
  5. Eros
    Eros
    These tendencies (at least in the West) have almost no connection to the working class and so as a result I think they are somewhat delusional and even reactionary when it comes to the use of violence. It's "ultra-leftist", to use their own terminology, as it's sort of a way of demanding revolution NOW.
  6. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    Class struggle is a long, difficult, process. It requires patience and devotion.

    Violence is a short, simple, easy act - one which requires little thought and patience. If history has taught us anything, it could be that violence is easiest - and hence most often used...
    I must reiterate that Marx's dictum on peace vs. violence is outdated. Yes, class struggle is the only way. How to conduct that class struggle, however, is a question of legality vs. extra-legality (such as civil disobedience). Once that question is resolved, peace or violence will result on the basis of how the other side reacts.
  7. Taboo Tongue
    Taboo Tongue
    I don't have much experience with different Maoist groups but the RCP in The Bay Area seems only to like the idea of violence when it is in the future. And that it is "Justified" in many cases. But overall against using violence (like soldier firing on officers, and African-Americans in Oakland killing cops in retribution for Oscar Grant).