[Marxism] Armed Struggle

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Thu Oct 15 15:59:15 MDT 2009

Guess you didn't read the follow-up emails.  I think there is most 
definitely a role for armed struggle when used in conjunction with 
class-conscious mass struggle.  I do not think  "peoples' war," "surrounding 
the cities,"  pre-Debray Debray focos offer viable paths for revolutionary 
struggle absent that class conscious mass struggle.  There is no Soviet 
Union to prop up a Mao, an NLF etc.

You think those assaulting and killing abortionists and making thinly veiled 
threats against Obama need to be confronted?  Absolutely, so do I.  The 
question of course is one of CONTENT.  What is the content of that 
confrontation?  Self-style vanguards, wearing Chairman Mao buttons marching 
in the streets with AK 47s and red books?

As for what the American people would or would not stand for, I think your 
assessment is rather superficial, shallow, and  precisely because you base 
it on some allegiance, imagined or real, that you think you, or Marxists, 
might or might not share with the "American people" about Constitutional 
provisions and "social contracts."

I have no idea what the "American people," as if such a thing exists apart 
from the class relations in the US, hold as inviolable and sacred.  But 
whatever it is, it certainly isn't that document born of the great 
compromise with slaveholders-- the US Constitution.  They didn't mind one 
bit when that "social contract" was shredded by the Patriot Act, Honeland 
Security,  domestic wiretaps, etc. etc.  Dixie Chicks excepted, and to the 
contrary not withstanding.

What did bother them was losing control of the battlefield in Iraq.  What 
did bother them was the economy tanking.

I would expect if there is a military coup in the US, the stage will be set 
not by those against Obama per se, but by Obama himself as he fulfills the 
legacy of Bush, and as mass, class-conscious resistance grows to the 
economic privation essential to that fulfillment.

And for your information, when Tom Ridge was Secretary of Homeland Security, 
he had plans drawn up in case it became necessary to cancel the 2004 
elections if it became necessary to declare martial law in response to 
"terrorists attacks."  So as push comes to shove and Obama strives to prove 
himself tough on terrorism, it's possible one might expect the bourgeoisie 
to pull some fantastic unbelievable stunt, like flying a couple of planes 
into a couple of tall buildings to set the alert level to day-glo 
fuscia/orange/red and ease the path to military rule.

Sure there's a relationship between political power and the barrel of a gun. 
Everbody from Napoleon to Pinochet   knew that without having to read the 
red book.  So what?  The question is:  What is that relationship? Do the 
Maoists in India work in such class-conscious mass based struggle?  Did the 
Shining Path?

I find that a bit hard to believe as a comrade from that region has pointed 
out that those Maoists in India are not opposed to killing cadres of other 
communist organizations [thus continuing the grand tradition that goes back 
to the 1930s inside and outside the USSR].

You say that the relationship between armed and mass struggle requires 
serious consideration.  Indeed it does.  Consideration more serious than 
simple praise, defense, of the actions of a sect that opposes 
class-conscious mass actions.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com>
To: "David Schanoes" <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Armed Struggle

> Artesian wrote:
> "... the real question for all is: Is armed
> struggle both (an) available substitute for and a
> successful alternative to class-conscious mass
> action?"

More information about the Marxism mailing list