'Armed Social-Democrats' - Maoism & class struggle

Rahul Mahajan rahul at peaches.ph.utexas.edu
Wed May 29 03:26:03 MDT 1996

Hugh, I'm glad to see you agree with me, since you raised no objections to
anything I said. To attribute the 1905 soviets to Trotskyism is really a
hoot -- you might as well give Ho Chi Minh the credit. Lenin also would be
surprised to hear that Trotsky, who differed with him on so many
substantive points, was in charge after the Revolution. Lenin, you might
notice, paid a great deal of attention to empirical facts and to the
realities of his country.

>Your line will never change the world. Mine might, if barbarism doesn't get
>us first.

You're such an unprintable asshole, Hugh. First of all, a "line"
vociferously and dogmatically repeated by a couple of morons in Sweden is
not going to change anything. Second of all, you have no fucking idea what
my "line" is -- although you ought to.

>PS Stalin and Mao both claimed to be Marxists, even though their
>contributions in both practice and theory mainly had a subversive,
>counter-revolutionary effect. As far as I've seen, you don't even claim to
>be a Marxist, which makes your criticism that of an outsider -- we don't
>even claim to be starting from the same principles. As someone not within
>the Marxist tradition of theory or organization, it's obvious that you will
>be dependent on what happens within the tradition for practical
>revolutionary alternatives, if you want to take practical revolutionary
>action. This is the traditional position of the disaffected petty

Once again. Do you, in your carefully cultivated innocence of all history,
have any idea how many great proletarian revolutionaries were not Marxists?
What I will be dependent on, just like "proletarian" fakers like yourself,
is the self-organization of the masses, particularly of the proletariat,
and, as in all mass movements, the synergy of countless different movements
actuated by different concerns that suddenly crystallize in a revolutionary
situation, whose time cannot be predicted or easily manipulated in advance.
By the way, the disaffected petty bourgeoisie was the source of most of the
important revolutionary leaders in history -- but there's that h word
again. Sorry.

One more time, since you're so goddamn slow, Hugh: Shouting revolutionary
slogans is not only no substitute for analysis, it doesn't show you're any
more of a genuine revolutionary than anyone else. Being pessimistic about
the current prospects for revolution does not mean being anti-revolution,
just as being mindlessly optimistic about it doesn't mean you're not
primarily a puffed-up knowitall petty bourgeois (yes, it's easy to use that
insult) self-aggrandizer.


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

More information about the Marxism mailing list