Re: CHRISes: Re: Peru and Marxist rigidity

[Rubyg580@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 96-04-05 10:23:53 EST, you write:

>> 96-04-01 Chris B writes:
>> > This l'st has become in this respect for some, a symbolic
>> >enactment of the class struggle, instead of an opportunity
>> >to comment on the class struggle going on out there.
>>Gina replies:
>> A very revealing comment.  Those who want the class struggle
>> to be only "out there" and not "here" are certain to be disappointed
>> again and again.  The debate between bourgeois and proletarian
>> ideology is not a "symbolic enactment" of class struggle, it is
>> a form of class struggle.
>>
Chris F:
>A very perceptive comment. And, imho, one of the key elements that
>seems to be missing by the section of this list that insists that it
>embodies the proletarian line is its rigidity in application and in
>general, underlying theoretical conclusions.
>
>This is objectively anti-marxist.

Gina: The dialectical materialism of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is
anything but rigid, being based on examining the material world and
how it really functions, with every process being composed of
opposing forces in contention. (that's not to deny that practitioners
and defenders of M-L-M are sometimes rigid in how we interpret or
apply the science)

However, M-L-M is completely partisan, reflecting the interests and
the life experience of the PROLETARIAT, which is an international
class.  This fact may cause it to seem rigid, particularly to people
who have lived their whole life in the relative comfort of the petty
bourgeoisie in imperialist countries.  The firmness of principle that
Maoists exhibit on behalf of the proletariat may well be somewhat
disturbing to p.b. intellectuals who rightly see revolution, especially
that led by the proletariat, as shaking up their comfortable world,
and their comfortable world view.

The "uncomfortable" fact is that Marxism, today developed to Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism, is a science and a philosophy whose purpose
is to guide the struggle for revolution and the dictatorship of the
proletariat, the only class in history whose most fundamental
interests are identical to those of humanity as a whole.  It is not
a body of thought created to amuse the intellectual class,although
certainly it can be used that way.

A hammer is a tool to drive in nails, or to break something apart; a
screwdriver is a tool to insert screws or to pry something out of a
tight spot.  Is it "rigid" to insist that these are the proper uses of
these tools, and to object when someone starts tossing them in the
air for amusement ?  Or tries to swat a fly with a hammer?  or unlock
a door with a screwdriver?

Gina/ Detroit



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---