Communism's name

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Sun Jun 16 16:59:49 MDT 1996


>>And thus ascended to "Marxist Heaven", Amen?  Or maybe just went on to
>>"Marxism 2"?  That's a nifty trick you have come with, dear Rahul:
>>"abandoning the left without actually going to the right"!.  Could your
>>eminence now finally reveal to us mortals how many angels can ACTUALLY dance
>>on the point of a needle as well?
>>
>>Adolfo
>
>Come on, Adolfo. You've never heard of people being apolitical? I'm not
>saying they made the right decision anyway, just that being disillusioned
>by the history of communism is quite understandable.
>
>Rahul
>


You disapoint me Rahul, I really expected you to come with a concrete number
of angels dancing on the point of a needle at last!  I would have just as
happily taken your word for it too, and my curiosity would have been, if not
satisfied, at least quite a lot assuaged!.  Now that your eminence has
passed over this opportunity to amaze us with an authoritative pronouncement
>from "on high", I am afraid we will never know!

On the other hand.  Remember what Aristotle had to say about man being a
"political animal"?  What would you then conclude of the nature of
"apolitical man"?  In class society there is no such a thing as an
apolitical person, in my opinion.  People may not have definite political
ideas about concrete issues in all circunstances and times, but when the
cookie crumbles, and their respective class interests are indeed affected,
everyone instinctively knows its place on the battle lines.

What else but politics can cause an "apolitical animal" (i.e., a plain
animal, such as a donkey, a cow, or a "Jesuit") to undergo "political
blindness" and keep pretending that "Quispe" and "Ccorimanya" are two
different persons when people who have concrete knowledge of this situation
have already confirmed it beyond any reasonable doubt?  Or for example, what
"impartial innocent" can raise the silly question of whether the Communist
Party of Peru, a Maoist Party, would want, or would not want, a Maoist
policy such as that promoted by the World Mobilisation Commission?   Every
ideology has the imprint of the class that bears it.

For me the question of communism's disarray and lack of credibility with the
masses is only a temporary phenomena and generally localised there where,
and when, the ruling classes can afford not to screw people that badly, and,
as a consequence, the class struggle is temporarily assuaged.

This is inevitable, since man, being a "political animal", is also an
"animal" too.  And, when things are on the whole tolerable, and their own
necks are not that tightly held in the noose, people will turn a blind eye
and become "apolitical" or "neutral" in many regards. And that is fine for
people who sustain the whole of society with their labour power and cannot
be expected to become hermits or ranters at the drop of a hat.

But, Marxists, are not ordinary people. They are the vanguard of a class
which in its turn its the vanguard of humanity, the "salt of the earth".
They scientifically KNOW that such conditions are only temporary and that
capital is bound to antagonise humanity to the point of putting it against
the wall.  Marxists can not be "neutral" or "apolitical" on questions which
affect the class interests of the proletariat at any time.

Lenin said: "nothing can discredit social-democracy (communism) unless it
discredits itself".  Those who call themselves Marxists should try then to
clean up their camp from all sorts of dross and caricatures peddling
bourgeois ideology under the label of Marxism, if they want to win back the
respect lost as a consequence of the abandoment of those very principles
which sustain the proletarian outlook, and no compromises should be entered
in this regard.

What can you expect people to think when they see a bunch of folk going thru
life calling themselves Marxists but at the same time denying every
principle of Marxism, every principle of the proletariat, and adopting the
most philistine calls for the "feast of brotherly love" and for the "lambs
to lay along side the lions"?

Marxism is the doctrine of the class struggle, not of class conciliation.
If the working masses, in a particular place or time are temporarily won for
conciliation with the ruling class by these "down payments" (for such are
the reforms that they ruling classes are forced to introduce to prevent
class conflict) - for example in the countries of imperialism - that in
itself is a quite "undertandable" POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT.  However, Marxists
know, because of their own scientific conviction, that such conditions are
only temporary.  That then such "Marxists" would trim their principles in
order to trail behind the masses offering them more of the same bourgeois
"volapuk" they have already conquered, minus the concrete "down payment",
would that not farther discredit Marxism?

Would that not render it more difficult for the masses to respect such
"Marxists" when conditions change and they start to look around for a clear
lead out of an impossible situation whne the "down payment" runs out?

Adherence to "undiluted" principle is the sine-qua non condition for Marxism
to be of any use to the people when the people will have a need for it!


Adolfo



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list