Jose Saavedra: "net.terrorist". A Speculation.

Rahul Mahajan rahul at
Sat Jun 1 02:23:37 MDT 1996

Hugh, who are you trying so desperately to convince of your revolutionary
manhood? I believe there's a line of Shakespeare's that applies.

>And Rahul, you're too dependent on the bourgeois democratic regime.

In case macho posturing takes up too much of your time for you to figure it
out, it's because of those "bourgeois democratic" rights that so many
people fought and died for that we can talk openly about socialism and
revolution. Even a poseur like you might get thrown in prison for what he
says otherwise.

>The worst thuggery and butchery in revolutionary upheavals is almost
>invariably produced by white reaction rather than red revolutionary justice
>(one of the most telling examples I know of is the Finnish civil war of

Thanks for great effort it must have taken for you to actually find an
example to back up what you're saying. I hope you don't make a habit of it
or you may find yourself expelled from the revolutionary vanguard. However,
I can't understand why you (and a few others) persist in saying things that
you know are obvious to everyone on the list, even me. Are you just trying
to score points? Compare the scope of white reaction in countries that are
at least partially bourgeois democracies with that in other countries,
whether nominally communist or not (i.e., the incredibly bloody
counterrevolutions in the USSR, China, and Cambodia). There's something to
be said for limited government; the proletarian rule you propose is not one
that even pretends to guarantee individual rights or due process. In
bourgeois democracies, that pretense often becomes a reality, which is why
important revolutionaries like you are free to raise high the banner of
world proletarian revolution.

>        -- Confess, you scum,
>        that you murdered and stole,
>        and were head of a death brigade!
>        Well, confess, you bastard,
>        or do you want the colt to speak?
>        Looking away
>        Emil mumbles his own sentence:
>        -- Make it the colt.

Two can play at this game, I suppose. I'll wager anything I'll ever own
that I would be more likely to choose the Colt than you, although you are
certainly more likely to beat your chest and give yourself credit for
someone else's choice than I (for documentation, see above quote).

Last but not least. If people like you and zodiac had the brains of a gnat,
you would not accuse me of cheerleading for the forces of law and order, or
of being a social democrat or a bourgeois democrat or an Elvis lover or a
whiny sandal-wearing postmarxist academic nose-upturner . On the other
hand, maybe you do (just barely) and say things like that simply because
it's easier than actually trying to argue in a serious fashion. If you have
to be insulting, well, we always try to accomodate people's little
fetishes, but don't insult the facts or the truth. Mix a little substance
in with all the idiotic questioning of my true revolutionary fervor -- try
maybe addressing the issues.


     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list