RAHUL: "Revolutionary" Consciousness
Rubyg580 at aol.com
Rubyg580 at aol.com
Mon Apr 1 16:55:48 MST 1996
In a message dated 96-03-27Rahul writes:
>I have a query which has to do with a small corner of worker subjectivity,
>although I suppose it might more accurately be termed petty bourgeois
>subjectivity. We have seen on the Net, and most of us in person, that a
>significant amount of the "marxist" left is composed of intolerant
>authoritarians who proclaim the infallibility of the Holy Writ and denounce
>all who argue with them as agents of world imperialism, if not CIA plants.
>They spend a great deal of time and effort in empty sloganeering and absurd
>rhetoric. I'm not talking so much about Shining Pathogens like Olaechea,
>who may well have been involved in the war (although he's already proven
>himself a liar, which disposes one to doubt anything else he says) but the
>Shining Pathetic like "Rubyg at aol.com" and "detcom at sprynet.com", who are not
>only interested in tailling every authoritarian Third World movement they
>can find, but show a touching eagerness to subordinate their wills to that
>of a master, wherever they can find one.
Rubyg (Gina/ Detroit) responds:
I am very honored to be considered "Shining Pathetic" by the likes of
"Rhaul",not because there's any truth to the idea that I or other
supporters of the PCP and the world revolution are"tailing every
authoritarian Third World movement they can find" or that we have
"a touching eagerness to subordinate their wills to that of a master,
wherever they can find one", but because of the total self-serving
attitude of the writer.
>Since the '60s, the US has seen an explosion of cults, from the Scientology
>to the Unification Church to the Branch Davidians. Those of you who have
>had some experience with "revolutionary" cults, would you say that the
>growth of cultism on the left has kept pace? Or has it simply followed the
>decline of the left as a whole?
>Finally, why is it that a Weltanschaaung like Marxism, seemingly the most
note: Weltanschaaung is simply German for ideology
>intelligent thing people have come up with for analyzing the social world,
>regularly elicits mindlessness on a par with what I have seen in the
>writings of neofascist movements (I am not of course equating them
>politically)? Why does an ideology of freedom, in fact the only one that is
>genuinely, rather than pro forma, concerned with the liberation of every
>human being, regularly lead to such authoritarianism that is, again, only
>equalied by the fascists with their cult of the man of destiny?
What Rahul fails to understand is that Marxism is not simply
"intelligent thing people have come up with for analyzing the social
world", it is in fact a PARTISAN ideology, partisan to the proletariat,
to the workers of the world, not the petty bougreois "leftists"who
would like to claim it as their own.
The point is that the liberation "of every human being" can only come
about in the future classless, communist society. Until that point is
reached, Marxism does NOT stand for the "liberation of EVERY
human being", but for the OVERTHROW of the old ruling classes
of human beings, in order to emancipate the classes of human
beings that the former exploit and oppress.
This is an "authoritarianism" of a profoundly different type than that of
the facists, whose goal is to maintain and intensify the exploitation
and oppression of the ruled classes, for the benefit of the ruling
classes. And the particular "men of destiny" that are revered
and followed by the ruled classes are profoundly different than
those revered and followed by the ruling classes. Their teachings
and their practical works are the diametrical opposite of those
of the ruling classes, the fascists.
>This would seem to be a nontrivial subject for the left, since not only are
>most workers alienated by these people, they often end up tarring anyone
>who talks about the need to overthrow global capitalism with the same
>brush. In a similar vein are the (slightly more sensible) people who talk
>about the great bloodshed that will be involved in the revolution in
>America, thus evincing no understanding of the world-historical epoch in
>which they live, the country in which they live, and the people they're
>trying to convert.
Rahul gives no evidence to back up his contention that "most workers"
are alienated by us who promote the proletarian ideology in the service
of world proletarian revolution. It is certainly true that in these
countries there are huge sections of workers who have been indooctrinated
with the anti-communist propaganda promoted by the imperialist ruling
class, and that this presents a challenge to those who promote real
communist ideology and practice.
But to further say:"In a similar vein are the (slightly more sensible)
people who talk about the great bloodshed that will be involved in the
revolution in America, thus evincing no understanding of the world-
historical epoch in which they live, the country in which they live,
and the people they're trying to convert." shows that it is Rahul, not
the PCP supporters who have no understanding of the epoch in which
they live. Political power still grows out of the barrel of a gun, same as
it has for all the historical eras in which the gun has been the main
weapon of enforcing the existing class structure.
It is those who believe in some miraculous future non-violent transformation
of imperialist oppression and exploitation of the workers, peasants
and other exploited classes into non-oppression and non-exploitation
who show no understanding of the wrold they live in.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism