[Marxism] Armed Struggle
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
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
More information about the Marxism