Gina and Presumptous Idealism

[iwp.ilo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (CEP )]

You(Gina) wrote:

>However, M-L-M is completely partisan, reflecting the interests and
>the life experience of the PROLETARIAT, which is an international
>class.

    Carlos:

    No partisan politics today (not just M-L-M) can claim that they
    "reflect" the "interests and the life experience of the
    proletariat" unless they can prove that they represent the
    overwhelming expression of class consciousness and that they are
    the party for, by and of the class.  M-L-M doesn't even represent
    the "interests and the life experience of the *vanguard* of the
    proletariat or of any significant section of it, not even at a
    national level.

    When a group of petitbourgeois politicians gather together and
    decided they do so and embark in a war with another armed
    apparatuss, they are being objectively anti-Marxists no matter what
    they claim.

    Even Lenin, and Trotsky for that matter, will say something
    pedantic such as their currents represented "the historical
    interests of the working class".  This is much more accurate
    and scientific because *does not* claim the representation of
    *the life experience* and the *interests* as they are today
    at the actual level of class consciousness, but of the "historical
    interests" alluding with it to the program.


    Gina:

  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.

    Carlos:

    Actually, it is a pedantic middle class assertion to define a
    minuscule group with almost no weight in the proletariat as to
    be the  reflection of the "interests and life experience of the
    working class".

    Rigidity doesn't come, then, from the representation of the
    proletariat but from the complete lack of understanding of
    the proletariat and what its interests and life experience are.

    Terrorism is, in itself, when elevated from a tactic to an
    strategy, a reflection of a sector of the desperate
    petitbourgeoisie, pragmatic and anti-scientific, who have lost
    all working class perspective and the hope to achieve one.  They
    have no patient to develop the mass movement ... they need action
    and change now ... therefore the bomb and the gun replace the
    theory, the program and the mass articulation of that program.

    This is not Marxism ... it is impotent idealism with a clear class
    origen: the pragmatist middle class.

    Carlos



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---