[Marxism] Re: Behind the unsubbing and self-unsubbing

Brian Shannon brian_shannon at verizon.net
Tue Apr 4 10:24:40 MDT 2006


Brian Shannon wrote:

> Behind the extreme rant that he throws up against me and others is  
> the reality that since Joaquin is against the whole project, he can  
> no longer discuss what revolutionists should do. He gives new life  
> to the old lawyer’s joke that if you can’t pound in the law and the  
> facts, you have to pound the table.
>
>> you're joking here, right?????? i mean, you're not serious that  
>> you believe J is against the project, are you?
>>
>> Les Schaffer


He said it first. Is there another interpretation? Well, I suppose  
one could say that hopefully Joaquin is saying that first we try to  
unite without waging class war and then later, when that fails, we  
will try something else. Of course, the failures are legion, so I  
won't bore the list with a new recital. Besides that's not Marxism. I  
don't know what it is.

However, Joaquin doesn't say this. This is our dream based on his  
past. I believe that we are trying to project our own illusions as to  
where he is going. But he forces himself away because he rejects  
Marxism's basic tenets on class struggle. As I have picked up from  
another list: "Joaquin has left the building." Here is his statement  
again:

> “I guess that makes it official, another season of Indian-bashing  
> on the Marxism list, denouncing those stupid Latin Americans trying  
> to rid themselves of imperialist domination by uniting instead of  
> waging the class war against each other.”


Here it is rewritten as a direct statement. If I violate its  
integrity, someone will correct me:

> Latin Americans can rid themselves of imperialist domination by  
> uniting instead of waging class war against each other.


Here is my summary of the issue (corrected slightly for grammar),  
which could be expanded, especially regarding building a  
revolutionary organization, but which I think stands on its own so  
long as opportunist and sectarian implications aren't read into it.  
And as I write, I see that that's exactly what Charles Brown has done  
as he conflates "white" with socialist revolutionists (which applies  
to each and every country). *

The people of Latin America will not be able to get together and rid  
themselves of imperialist domination, which is inextricably tied in  
with the domination of the national bourgeoisie, unless the urban and  
rural masses of each nation overthrow their own governments and  
establish workers states. The task of socialist revolutionists is to  
use their best effort, based on their understanding of the particular  
social and political structure and tradition of each country, to help  
accomplish this goal.

Brian
_________________

*  “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,  
“it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so  
many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - -  
that”s all.”







More information about the Marxism mailing list