Re: VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS A UNIVERSAL LAW

[molotov1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (ANTHONY FROSINOS )]

Somebody wrote:
>
>>Revolutionary violence always has been and is today a dividing line
>>between real and phoney Marxists.
>>
>>Compare the position of the Trotskyite "International Socialist
>>Organisation" aka "Socialist Workers Party" with that of genuine
Marxism.
>>The paralysing Economism of the ISO/SWP is shown in these passages
>from
>>two of their publications:
>>      "the crucial battle is not fought with bombs and guns. It is a
>>      battle of ideas, the struggle to break the hold of the past, the
>>      conservative traditions which weigh down the majority of the
>>      workers. But this isn't a battle which centres on just meetings
>>      and making propaganda. It centres on the daily struggle in the
>>      workplace, the daily struggle against the foreman, the boss and
>>      ultimately the employing class itself, the struggle in which the
>>      workers transcend their own passivity and can be won to
>>      revolutionary ideas."[4]
>>
>>      "revolutionaries do not, even in revolutionary situations, spend
>>      their time running around with guns and bombs."[5]
>>
>>The ISO/SWP say, "the crucial battle is not fought with bombs and
guns"
>>-- this is the OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH! Like the phoney Marxists which
>>Lenin fought in his time, the ISO/SWP peddle, "the miserable and
cowardly
>>dream of an unarmed struggle against the armed bourgeoisie, vain
yearning
>>for the destruction of capitalism without a desperate civil war or
wars."[6]
>>
>>The genuine Marxists around the world uphold the celebrated thesis of
Mao
>>Tsetung: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."[7]
>
>
>The above are two ends of the anti-marxist and anti leninists
stick.The
>first example are the modern mensheviks who are in terror of arming
the
>masses for a violent seizure of power.
>

    I agree with you here trotskyism is anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist
and trotskist are  the modern day menshevicks. They are enemies of the
proletarian revolution and of course they fear what the workers would
do with them.

 >The second is adventurist and modern maoist stupitidy. Here they
raise the
>question of armed struggle to a principle everywhere and anytime.
>
>Both are deadly wrong and anti-Leninist. Insurrection and armed
insurrection
>by the proletariat is an extremely sophisticated struggle in the final
phase
>of seizing power.To transplant Mao,s theroy of peasant warfare as the
way
>forward is just ridiculous.
>
   But why is the theory of peasant warfare ridiculous? Peoples war
developed by Charman Mao and applied by the Communist part of Peru has
proven to have been very successful. The revolution in Peru is the most
advanced revolutionary movement in the world today bar none, even with
the capture of Chairman Gonzalo it advances forward toward the seizure
of power.

    This can only be a creation of some petty bougeois intellectuals
who are
>romantising "people,s war" in order to build small solidarity groups
for
>there own revolutionary credentials. Only by building Bolshevik
parties in
>the main bastions of imperialism which will lead to the proletariat
taking
>power, probably in and armed insurrection, can show the way forward.
>
     I agree that the task for revolutionaries in the imperialist
countries is to build revolutionary vanguard parties. But armed
insurrection is not just probable, it totally necessary. There is no
other way. You can't seriously beleive power can be obtained at the
ballot box or that capitalism will evolve to socialism peacefully can
you?
    In the oppressed nations the situation is much different. The armed
struggle is necessary from the very start. Of course it must be led by
the proletariat and its vanguard party, but the more open forms of
political struggle are not avalable. Where bourgoise democracy does not
exist what are the masses supposed to do? Are they to wait for the
proletarait of the imperialist countries to make revolution? Fuck No!


>By being cheer leaders for the third world desperation which expresses

itself sometimes in people like Gonzalo will not solve our
>problems.Unfortunately our petty bourgeois intellectals ramble on and
on.
>When will we start discussing the real tasks of organising workers
>revolutions in the advanced countries. Because if we wait for these
maoists
>to come and do it--it just won,t happen.Period!
>
>Malecki
>
> This clearly shows the reactionary character of trotskyism, it
couldn't be more clear. The peoples of the oppressed nations must wait
for their saviors the workers of the imperialist nations. They can't
make revolution you say until the workers are organized.
  It's no wonder that trotsyism has been rejected time and time again
by the proletariat not only in the oppressed nations where it can't
offer anything, but by the workers in the advanced countries also. Even
when it promises them everything.
  Trotskism has been defeated by Leninism time after time, thanks to
our great leader Comrade Stalin who along with the masses destroyed
trotskyism and showed our class what this traitor trotsky was all
about. In closing I would like you to show me where trotskism has been
successful in leading a revolution. I don't think you can, so I must
say that the path to revolution by splitting and selling the Millatant,
Workers Vanguard, Spark and all those other boring newspapers papers is
quite ridiculous.


                                          Tony


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---