RE: [MLL] Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Comrades, I hope that I will continue with my discussion of Mao's On New Democracy soon. The postponement of the discussion is due to some personal problem, and also to some other recently introduced new topics of discussion. As I mentioned before, any idea in favor of "Mao's thought" is welcome, in opposion to mine, for a better understanding of the role of Maoism in relation to communism in the tradition of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Javad ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
- Original Message - From: Javad Eskandarpour To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 3:27 AMSubject: Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism! Comrades, I mentioned, in the last e-mail, that I will begin discussing Mao's On New Democracy with a preliminary historical remarks on it. Chinese experts and well-informed Maoists might know of Wang Ming, who was a great communist in the Communist Party of China, and was the Chinese representative in the Comintern. It is appropriate to see what Ming says in relation to Mao's attitude to On New Democracy. The text of his conversation with Mao on Mao's On New Democracy is relatively long, so I will present it in segments with my remarks on them. Wang Ming states that "from September 1941 on, in private conversations with members of the Politbureau, Mao often referred to his plan of creating Maoism. Here is the the content of one of Mao's conversations with me: `Comrade Wang Ming, I want to create Maoism. What is your opinion on this score?' `For what purpose?' `If a leader has no "ism" of his own, he can be overthrown during his lifetime, and may even be attacked after death. With an "ism" the situation is different. Marx has Marxism and though the Second International split into many groups, none dared to go against Marx and Marxism. Lenin has Leninism and though there were many groups and currents in the Third International and the Bolshevik Party, none acted openly against Lenin and Leninism. Sun Yat-sen has Sun Yat-senism and though there is turmoil and a great number of groups in the Kuomintang, none dares to go against Sun Yat-sen and Sun Yat-senism. If I do not create my own "ism", I may be overthrown even though the 7th CPC Congress elects me chairman of the Central Committee' Before proceeding with this "intelligent" conversation of Mao, I must say that Mao's mentality is a shopkeeper mentality which is anxious over some "competitions" coming from Marx, Lenin, and Sun Yat-sen in the bazaar of "isms"! Maoists might say that this conversation is the invention of Wang Ming becuase Ming wanted to vilify Mao due to their previous political clashes in the CPC, especially this is a "private conversation". In other words, this is Ming's words against Mao's. This objection might appear convincing at the first glance, but this first glance is not sufficient regarding any historical oral or writtten documents because subsequent oral and written documents might bolster or reject the content of any oral or written documents through a detalied analysis of available documents along with the historical product of any particular social event. If this is not the case, then why Maoists want to accept whatever Mao has said or written. The truthfulness of Wang Ming's "private conversation" report will be shown in the course of the subsequent analysis of Mao's ideas in On New Democarcy, but not solely through the "private conversation" itself. So let us proceed with the conversation when Wang Ming replies to Mao's above reasoning. "I replied: `It is not true that an "ism" is a guarantee against being overthrown. Indeed, if the "ism" is wrong, one can fall very quickly. Trotsky and Chen Tu-hsiu had their "isms", but didn't they both become a cropper? Like the communist parties of other countries, the Communist Party of China is guided by Marxism-Leninism. Why "stoke a separate furnace" and create an "ism"?" Wang Ming is correct when he says that, for example, Trotsky became a cropper regardless of Trotskyism. In addition to Wang's idea, I must say that trends like Trotskyism, and Maoism become fashinable among the petty-bourgeois strata of society, especially in the West. Now let us listen to Mao's reply to Wang ming's above question. "`By creating Maoism I shall preserve Marxism,' said Mao Tse-tung. `All I reject is Leninism. My approach is the following: Leninism is Russian Marxism, a blend of the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Russian revolution; Maoism is chinese or Sinified Marxism, a blend of the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution.'" As it is evident from the above quoted passage, all Mao rejects is Leninism, but nothing else! In other words, Mao "accepts" the universal truth of Marxism (whatever this means to Mao) but rejects Leninism because Leninism is allegedly a Russian phenomenon which is "blended" with the universal truth of Marxism, or the Russian "water" in the "pail" of Marxism. No wonder that some simple-minded Maoists repeat th
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Comrades, I mentioned, in the last e-mail, that I will begin discussing Mao's On New Democracy with a preliminary historical remarks on it. Chinese experts and well-informed Maoists might know of Wang Ming, who was a great communist in the Communist Party of China, and was the Chinese representative in the Comintern. It is appropriate to see what Ming says in relation to Mao's attitude to On New Democracy. The text of his conversation with Mao on Mao's On New Democracy is relatively long, so I will present it in segments with my remarks on them. Wang Ming states that "from September 1941 on, in private conversations with members of the Politbureau, Mao often referred to his plan of creating Maoism. Here is the the content of one of Mao's conversations with me: `Comrade Wang Ming, I want to create Maoism. What is your opinion on this score?' `For what purpose?' `If a leader has no "ism" of his own, he can be overthrown during his lifetime, and may even be attacked after death. With an "ism" the situation is different. Marx has Marxism and though the Second International split into many groups, none dared to go against Marx and Marxism. Lenin has Leninism and though there were many groups and currents in the Third International and the Bolshevik Party, none acted openly against Lenin and Leninism. Sun Yat-sen has Sun Yat-senism and though there is turmoil and a great number of groups in the Kuomintang, none dares to go against Sun Yat-sen and Sun Yat-senism. If I do not create my own "ism", I may be overthrown even though the 7th CPC Congress elects me chairman of the Central Committee' Before proceeding with this "intelligent" conversation of Mao, I must say that Mao's mentality is a shopkeeper mentality which is anxious over some "competitions" coming from Marx, Lenin, and Sun Yat-sen in the bazaar of "isms"! Maoists might say that this conversation is the invention of Wang Ming becuase Ming wanted to vilify Mao due to their previous political clashes in the CPC, especially this is a "private conversation". In other words, this is Ming's words against Mao's. This objection might appear convincing at the first glance, but this first glance is not sufficient regarding any historical oral or writtten documents because subsequent oral and written documents might bolster or reject the content of any oral or written documents through a detalied analysis of available documents along with the historical product of any particular social event. If this is not the case, then why Maoists want to accept whatever Mao has said or written. The truthfulness of Wang Ming's "private conversation" report will be shown in the course of the subsequent analysis of Mao's ideas in On New Democarcy, but not solely through the "private conversation" itself. So let us proceed with the conversation when Wang Ming replies to Mao's above reasoning. "I replied: `It is not true that an "ism" is a guarantee against being overthrown. Indeed, if the "ism" is wrong, one can fall very quickly. Trotsky and Chen Tu-hsiu had their "isms", but didn't they both become a cropper? Like the communist parties of other countries, the Communist Party of China is guided by Marxism-Leninism. Why "stoke a separate furnace" and create an "ism"?" Wang Ming is correct when he says that, for example, Trotskyism became a cropper regardless of Trotskyism. In addition to Wang's idea, I must say that trends like Trotskyism, and Maoism become fashinable among the petty-bourgeois strata of society, especially in the West. Now let us listen to Mao's reply to Wang ming's above question. "`By creating Maoism I shall preserve Marxism,' said Mao Tse-tung. `All I reject is Leninism. My approach is the following: Leninism is Russian Marxism, a blend of the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Russian revolution; Maoism is chinese or Sinified Marxism, a blend of the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution.'" As it is evident from the above quoted passage, all Mao rejects is Leninism, but nothing else! In other words, Mao "accepts" the universal truth of Marxism (whatever this means to Mao) but rejects Leninism because Leninism is allegedly a Russian phenomenon which is "blended" with the universal truth of Marxism, or the Russian "water" in the "pail" of Marxism. No wonder that some simple-minded Maoists repeat the myth of separate entities called "Marxism", "Marxism-Leninism", "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" ( actually they should have used "Marxism-Maoism" instead of "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism") and debate their "crucial" differences from each other. And this "blending" activity of Mao, or carrying the Chinese "water" in the "pail" of Marxism is indicative of his "dialectical" understanding of the relation of universal to particular! Let us see what Wang Ming say
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Ignore this!
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Ignore this!
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Javad comrade, You wrote > Comrade Moreira, > > In order to discuss an issue, I usually prefer the primary sources > over the secondary ones. So, the source of the Wang Ming's private > conversation with Mao is Wang Ming's own book, Mao's Betrayal. OK thanks. I accept it as a reliable source. > When you state that you have "heard and read of references to `the > Moscow group' in discussions with student comrades and Chinese publications > and believed that they were supporters of Soviet revisionism an this thread > you have started will tell it from a different perspective, whether or not I > end up agreeing with you or not", it gives the impression that this "Moscow > group" story started during the Khrushchev misleadership. But contrary to > this impression, its history is earlier than the Khrushchev misleadership > time, and goes back to the time when Stalin was the leader of the USSR and > the Chinese Communist Party was in struggle against the imperialism. Thanks for pointing the chronological aspect out. However, if the CPC leadership had wanted to discredit anyone aligned to the Soviet line for dishonest reasons, it would not have bothered about chronology. What are your criticism's of Mao's work on New Democracy, his comment that Stalin was 70% correct and why China and Albania went revisionist. Fraternally Charles > > > Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list > > > > > ___ > Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list > ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Comrades,
Javad wrote:-
> Comrade Moreira,
>
> I would like to make some comments in relation to your e-mail.
> (1) I have never made the following claim that you have ascribed to me
> because I am not in that China discussion:"Javad maintains that based upon
> the pro-capitalist (in fact comprador capitalist) policies of China's
> leadership to seek foreign direct investment from the imperialist
countries
> to set up factories and exploit its workers, China is
> already a capitalist country -- a conclusion based on policies of its
> leaders, rather than on material conditions".
MY APOLOGIES Javad comrade, it was Joseph Stalin who more or less said the
above in his discussions with Klo below. I paraphrased him over several
posts, though I mixed Joseph up with you, since your topic is also about
China
"I am new to this NG, but I must agree that China's
policies are capitalist and even fascist in nature. I
do not support that Cuba and its heroic people and
leader are called fascists. But Ping and all the other
revisionists ruling China today are absolutely, 100%
capitalist. They don't even make an attempt at even a
communist image. I think these are not slanders. The
evidence is in every store you go into. Pick up a
shirt or a toy or a pen, and see where it was made.
Does it say "Made in China"? Most propably. This shows
that the Chinese governemtn allows Foreing companies
to exploit Chinese people at will for profits in the
west. All the sky scrappers in Peking and Shangai are
all owned by western companies. All the factories and
sweatshops are owned by the capitalists. Deng returned
China to its 19th century status, of shperes of
influence. China is again today carved up into shperes
of influence. Its a shame and a discrace that China
today carries a red flag."
Javad continues:-
> (2) In relation to the question of the trustworthiness of Wang Ming, I
must
> say that the truth of his utterances, whether seemingly slanderous or not,
> will be shown through the examination of Mao's ideas expressed in his
> articles, and other written and oral documents on him.
I wanted to know where you read the account on Wang Ming's and Mao's
discussion and how trustworthy is that source or sources of your
information.
> Let us remind
> ourselves that Wang Ming was in the Comintern, and remained loyal to the
> ideals of Marxism-Leninism, and could not make any kind of political
"deal"
> with imperialism that Mao made (but Mao used to call Wang Ming the leader
of
> "the Moscow group", reminiscent of our bourgeois dictators who called any
> Marxist-Leninist group or party "Moscow agents"). Regardless of all the
> above, Mao will show his true colors through his own ideas, for example,
> though his On New Democarcy, and On Contradiction, and etc.
I welcome reading your criticism of Mao's works above. I've heard and read
of references to "the Moscow group" in discussions with student comrades and
Chinese publications and believed that they were supporters of Soviet
revisionism an this thread you have started will tell it from a different
perspective, whether or not I end up agreeing with you or not.
> (3) In connection to some "revelations" by the imperialists to discredit
> Mao, Mao discredited himself through his "theoretical" works, and his
> infamous political "deal" with Nixon, and other political misadvadures
> around the world. Thus, Mao did not leave any substanial "work" for the
> imperialists in their propaganda department! Some occasional "revelations"
> are seemingly directed to Mao in order to discredit communism and the
> Communist Party of China because some socialist-oriented workers in some
> countries, for various reasons, associate Mao's name with communism.
That answers one question I posed, which is whether Mao had anything to do
with China's deal with Nixon and the United States.
> (4)Concerning your question ("Why is it that after shrilly condemning
Soviet
> revisionism, especially after Mao's death, China increasingly went down th
e
> same road?"), I would like to draw our attention to a misconception that
> "shrilly condemning Soviet revisionism" is not necessarily tantamount to
> having an "anti-revisionist" political standpoint.
No it doesn't but alongside those shrill condemnations, the Communist party
of China constantly called for its members to be "ever vigilant against
bourgeois agents within the Communist Party" to prevent such a thing
happening in China, so I accepted that they were sincerely making some
effort to prevent revisionism happening but it happened despite all those
efforts, so why did it happen?
Why did it subsequently also happen in Albania, after the death of Enver
Hoxha and the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Fraternally
Charles
___
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Comrades,
Firstly, I'd like to ask Cde. Javad about the trustworthiness of the source
of this account of what Wang Ming said about Mao, since Wang's accusations
of Mao seem more like slanders than honest criticism and evaluation of his
policies.
I've heard of another account in a recently published boot that his doctor
said that Mao frequently had sex with teenage girls and while I don't
remember this book's title or who it was written by, it's obviously one of
those "revelations" by the imperialists to discredit Mao.
The damage it did was to turn my friend and comrade in my student days in
the 1970's from a stauch Maoist and supporter of Stalin and Enver Hoxha into
one who is critical of Mao, Stalin and Hoxha in the late 1990's.
He said that Hoxha personally executed a leading PLA member (can't remember
who) for being a CIA agent and he asked why Hoxha did not kill him earlier,
despite knowing that he was an agent.
Secondly, whether the account is true or not, I'm in favour of Javad's
proposal to critically examine Mao and his ideas and doctrines and rather
than arguing about "isms," I'm more interested in whether Mao's theories on
New Democracy and the two-stage revolution were valid for the time they were
written and if they did, whether they still hold any validity today.
Furthermore, especially since China's rapproachment with the United States
began (as far as I know and can recall) with an invitation of a US table
tennis (ping pong) team to visit China, sometime in early 1971 ("Ping-Pong
Diplomacy"), culminating in Nixon's visit to China in 1972, after which
China began to slowly soften its stand towards the United States and the
West, while becoming more hostile to the Soviet Union and its socialist
allies.
Mao was alive at the time (he died in the summer of 1976), did he play any
part in these developments, apart from shaking Nixon's hand? Also what was
Chinese premier Chou En Lai's role in all this, since he was the main
negotiator with Nixon?
Between 1972 and 1976, the Communist Party of China took the stand that the
Soviet Union was state capitalist and social imperialist and that while it
was feigning an attack on the East, it would actually actually attack the
west and China based upon its three-world theory, China called upon the
Western European nations to support NATO and the European Economic
Community) as a bulwark against "Soviet Social Imperialism."
I was supporter of the then Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist)
(Now the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain M-L) which at that time
was pro-China and I repeatedly echoed China's position in its speeches and
publications and like most Maoists, I treated all this as Gospel.
However, I subsequently began to feel that China's position was rather
opportunistic, since it seemed to be provoking the Soviet Union and the West
to go to war -- possibly a nuclear war -- and destroy each other, which
would leave China relatively untouched as the sole big power on earth, since
I believed that two heavily nuclear armed blocs engaged in nuclear war with
each other would not waste their nuclear bombs and missiles on other
countries which did not immediately threaten them.
Here China appeared to completely discount the revolutionary potential of
the West's working class, nor did it seem to care how many of them would be
killed in the war if it ever took place.
Furthermore, its opposition to Soviet social imperialism led it to oppose
the Soviet and Cuban backed MPLA in Angola, China supported Jonas Savimbi's
Unita which was backed by South Africa and also to oppose Vietnames
intervention in Cambodia in support of Hun Sen's faction against the Khmer
Rouge who were completely destroying Cambodia and not allowing it to start
constructing socialism.
When the Party of Labour of Albania published Enver Hoxha's report on the
Seventh Congress of the PLA which critisesed China Three-World Theory and
its policies above, I felt vindicated and became a supporter of Hoxha and
Albania. The CPE (M-L) and Reg Birch's CPB (M-L) were among some of the
Marxist-Leninist parties in Britain which split with China to align with
Albania.
Another question is why, after criticising the triumph of revisionism in the
Soviet Union and later in China, Albania eventually went the same way after
the death of Enver Hoxha and the collapse of the Soviet Union? The collapse
of socialism in Albania was a very demoralising experience for me who
believed it was the last bastion of socialism -- a disappointment which led
me to turn to Trotskyism for answers for a few years.
Why is it that after shrilly condemning Soviet revisionism, especially after
Mao's death, China increasingly went down the same road?
Cde. Alan Dover has provided a cogent explanation for the collapse of
socialism in his work, Two Complementary Roads to Socialism which can be
found at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dove/.
However, I'm also interested in other comrades' explanations of these
occur
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Comrade Per, I read your comments. One cannot just brush any matter aside, especially Mao and Maoism in the light of Mao's connection to the imperialist world through Nixon, because there was "revisionism" in the world! Your comment is suitable to those people who like to follow in fear many "truths" they are presented to. This kind of behaviour is not becoming of a communist, especially a Marxist-Leninist one. Thus, instead of an empty reference to "the modern revisionist in USSR who sent it out", let us hear your reasoning and understanding; otherwise, we will end up scaring each other with this intellectual "bogeyman"--"the modern revisionism". Still, if you would like to entertain yourself with this modern intellectual "bogeyman", then you better bask under the sun of "the revealed truths" while waiting for some more! Javad - Original Message - From: Per Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:27 PM Subject: SV: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism! > Be careful Comrade! > > I have read the same before - but it was the modern revisionist in USSR who > sent it out - at that time... > > The problem is not a ism or not - let us be more concrete on this! > > --- > Yours in solidarity > Per Rasmussen > Denmark > ___ > Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list > ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Ignore this! ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Ignore this! ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
- Original Message - From: Javad Eskandarpour To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism! Comrades, This topic, Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism, might be an anathema to Maoists, but at the same time it might be a step to liberate ourselves from some myths presented as truths, even as self -evident truths which need no inquiry. Thus, I would like to present some Maoist "truths" with my remarks on them. Maoists are indeed welcome to present their views in order to keep the "glorious" flag of Maoism aloft in the course of rational discussions, instead of their habitual empty reference to the so-called tradition of "from Marx-to-Mao"! Maoist-Myth(1): Mao's On New Democracy is a Marxist-Leninist theoretical work. My remarks: Mao's On New Democracy is not a Marxist-Leninist theoretical work at all, but it is indeed a Maoist "theoretical" work. In order to substantiate my claim, I must indeed show the relevent ideas in Mao's work, which are not Marxist-Leninist ideas. Before proceeding with this task, I would like to mention that I will use any historically solid available (to me or other members) documents regardless of their pro- or anti-Maoist orientation. In the next e-mail I will begin with some historical remarks on Mao's work, and proceed with Mao's political ideas. Javad
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Comrades, This topic, Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism, might be an anathema to Maoists, but at the same time it might be a step to liberate ourselves from some myths presented as truths, even as self -evident truths which need no inquiry. Thus, I would like to present some Maoist "truths" with my remarks on them. Maoists are indeed welcome to present their views in order to keep the "glorious" flag of Maoism aloft in the course of rational discussions, instead of their habitual empty reference to the so-called tradition of "from Marx-to-Mao"! Maoist-Myth(1): Mao's On New Democracy is a Marxist-Leninist theoretical work. My remarks: Mao's On New Democracy is not a Marxist-Leninist theoretical work at all, but it is indeed a Maoist "theoretical" work. In order to substantiate my claim, I must indeed show the relevent ideas in Mao's work, which are not Marxist-Leninist ideas. Before proceeding with this task, I would like to mention that I will use any historically solid available (to me or other members) documents regardless of their pro- or anti-Maoist orientation. In the next e-mail I will begin with some historical remarks on Mao's work, and proceed with Mao's political ideas. Javad
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Javad Eskandarpour wrote: > Comrade Klo, > >I agree with your view that "the current differences are not much but > in this case they are enough to warrant marching in the streets. The clear > message of all leftists should be: We are not supporting Gore; we are > opposing a crypto-fascist takeover by the Bushites". >And this "marching in the streets" is a political lesson and a first > step towards the smashing of the capitalist state machine and its > replacement by the proletarian state. In other words, these political > demonsrations must be viewed and directed as political lessons towards > "enrolling" in school of communism, not as political games in school of the > patch-work liberal capitalism. > Javad > Javad Demonstrations should, indeed, be used to heighten political awareness rather than act as band-aid on a system that itself needs replacement. The liberal approach is definitely not the way to proceed, although, unfortunately, millions of American proletarians are not thinking along those lines and do not realize the degree to which the class struggle is the linchpin about with all issues revolve. For the cause, Klo ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Comrade Klo, I agree with your view that "the current differences are not much but in this case they are enough to warrant marching in the streets. The clear message of all leftists should be: We are not supporting Gore; we are opposing a crypto-fascist takeover by the Bushites". And this "marching in the streets" is a political lesson and a first step towards the smashing of the capitalist state machine and its replacement by the proletarian state. In other words, these political demonsrations must be viewed and directed as political lessons towards "enrolling" in school of communism, not as political games in school of the patch-work liberal capitalism. Javad ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Javad Eskandarpour wrote: > Comrades, > > "Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism" and "The international Zionism"as > possible topics of discussion on this Marxist-Leninist list seem to have met > with a great "enthusiasm" , unlike some forwarded liberal news pieces which > induce a good hibernation amidst the terrible stormy days! >In view of this "enthusiasm", I will begin discussing some myths, > presented as historical and theoretical truth, in the limits of the above > topics. > > Javad Javad If by liberal news pieces you are referring to my forwarding of some articles regarding demonstrations against the installation of crypto-fascists to lead the American government, it may surprise you to learn that I agree with your assessment. They were, indeed, liberal news pieces and I pondered at length whether or not they should even be sent to this list. Demonstrations are not going to prevent the takeover, but what is the alternative. Not demonstrate at all. Just acquiesce and provide a kind of passive acceptance without remonstrance. No, I think demonstrations do bring pressure to bear on those in power and the greater the crowd the stronger the message. Those taking over should know they have no mandate and will be opposed at every level. I went through the change from the Carter to the quasi-fascist Rotten Ronnie Reagan administration and there is a difference in who is in charge. I could feel it throughout the entire 8 miserable years. The current differences are not much but in this case they are enough to warrant marching in the streets. The clear message of all leftists should be: We are not supporting Gore; we are opposing a crypto-fascist takeover by the Bushites. Stated in stark terms: I dislike that capitalist agent Roosevelt immensely, but if it is a choice between him and Hitler, I will hit the streets, because I totally despise the latter. For the cause, Klo ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
Re: [MLL]Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism!
Comrades, "Maoism vs. Marxism-Leninism" and "The international Zionism"as possible topics of discussion on this Marxist-Leninist list seem to have met with a great "enthusiasm" , unlike some forwarded liberal news pieces which induce a good hibernation amidst the terrible stormy days! In view of this "enthusiasm", I will begin discussing some myths, presented as historical and theoretical truth, in the limits of the above topics. Javad ___ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
