'armed strikes' and workers' democracy : notes of a liquidator
hariette at easynet.co.uk
Fri Oct 4 15:04:29 MDT 1996
> I am sympathetic with parts of your argument, not with
>others. I think it is unavoidable that innocent people
>will get killed in any revolution, even that of the
>relatively low key American one. That does not necessarily
>mean that the revolution should be opposed, although one
>certainly hopes that such deaths are minimized rather than
>gotten into out of pure sectarianism and internal
>factional power struggling justified after the fact.
> As regards the case of Chiara, who you say may not
>even exist, it remains a bit premature for you to declare
>that he clearly must have been a class enemy. This could
>have been a mistake or just plain wrong, even if the
>larger cause can be justified and is gaining the genuine
>support of the masses. All along my complaint about your
>approach has been your propensity to simply assume that
>anything done by whomever you support must be correct,
>period, and that anybody raising questions about it must be
>all kinds of things that you call lots of people on this
>list on a very frequent basis.
> BTW, do you have a response to what the _Revolutionary
>History_ editor has had to say about Chiara?
>On Fri, 4 Oct 1996 02:14:03 +0100 (BST) hariette spierings
><hariette at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
That is precisely, my dear Blarney, what convinces me that this is another
canard of the reactionary propaganda. Why are this dire enemies of Maoism -
the Trotskyst sectarians - waving this particular shroud? Out of accident?
What sort of a working class hero is this that would get himself bumped off
in times of revolution and then by - according to the argument of his own
fans - the revolutionary elements themselves? Certainly a rather rummy
class warrior, would you not say?
In any case, I am glad you got away from the moralistic argument and
recognised that to judge or attempt to judge revolutions - even the "mild"
ones such as the American one (which BTW I think had quite a few more
casualties than the Peruvian one which is supposedly so "bloodthirsty" -
correct me if I am wrong) - by the question of this case or the other, plays
directly into the strategy of the High Command of the armed forces defending
the state of the ruling classes.
A very sorry situation to find yourself if, as Rodweel and malecki and their
chums from Poder Obrero do, you are trying to portray your politics as a
friendly to revolutionary people anywhere.
Revolutions are not correct or incorrect for moral reasons. It is only the
spirit of actuarians which hides behind the leftish rethoric of the Trots
which makes them count each one of their beans and thus end up exposing
their true counter-revolutionary role and IDENTITY of purpose with the
I have more respect for the words of the direct enemies, such as the
generals themselves, than for these wishy-washy idiots. At least they are
frank and overt and definite in their goals: "We are at war" In War - as
it is in love - everything goes! - The question is which side are you on.
Rodwell, like Plant and malecki, whatever their differences about their
arcane "transitional programmes" have shown - together with their "Poder
Obrero" concoction that they are happily and non-chalantly playing in the
team of the reactionary classes.
I rather deal with the organ grinder than with the monkeys!
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism