Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:18:13 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: M-G: family  


On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Robert Malecki wrote:

>  Leszek writes:
> 
>  My question is: how come that one country whose
> >economy was profit-based could create, in your own words, "one of the most
> >powerful imperialist powers on this earth," and the other produced the
> >most bloody, intolerant and poorest nuclear superpower in the history of 
> >this world? 
> 
> Are you saying that America created its empire without shedding the blood of 
> millions? Is America "tolerant" and the former Soviet Union "intolerant"? 
> And as far as the "nuclear power is concerned I am for the workers bomb!

	Yes, I am! Who were those millions whose blood was shed?
	Yes, America is tolerant and the former Soviet Union was clearly
intolerant. The best proof is that Marxist ideas have always been spread
without any bans and prohibitions in the USA, and I don't think the same
could be claimed about the former Soviet Union.
	And I am NOT for the workers' bomb simply because the bomb doesn't
possess class consciousness and when it falls it kills workers and
bourgeoisie all right. And, off the side, the bomb you mention is not teh
workers' bomb.


>	OK, I will. But
people on this list, me included, deserve
> >evidence, not mere propaganda. The separate being I mention above is a
> >fact, scientifically valid,and it has nothing to do whatsoever with the 
> >position of the arch reactionary Catholic Church. I need arguments and not 
> >propaganda!
> 
> Funny thing is that about your so called scientific validity is that it is 
> connected to the Chatholic churches propaganda on women NOT being able to 
> decide about their own bodies.
>
    	Where's the evidence? And again, the fact that something is
supported by the Catholic Church doesn't mean that it must be necessarily
wrong! What's more, let everybody do whatever they want with THEIR bodies!
I couldn't agree more. But a child, once conceived, IS NOT PART OF WOMEN'S
BODY, whether we like it or not. I hope to hear more about that from other
participants in this list.
 >
> >	Well, I never! Where did you get this information from? If that
> >isn't a drivel, what is then? (I would suggest, BTW, that we watch our
> >language). I understand that you may be dreaming about the worldwide
> >revolution, but what we need is facts, nothing else!
> 
> The above that you have written is not facts. It is just taking sides. And 
> you obviously paint up the side you are supporting in this as " the greatest 
> superv power"
> etc. etc. etc.
> 
	Let me repeat the question: where did you get this news from?

> >	Meanwhile, I'd like to note that you've left certain questions of
> >mine unanswered. For example, the law in hated western democracies. If
> >that should happen to be so, I ask for examples!
> 
> Well, Lenin and Trotsky certainly did deal with the White 
> counter.revolutionary forces in the civil war. Including the Anarchists and 
> so. I certainly defend these actions. But are you saying that these actions 
> are comparible to what the Stalinists did?
> 
	Agan, Bob, you've left it unanswered. I'd really like to know what
you think about the so called bourgeois law. And I hope others will join
us here, changing the topic of our discussion (something which has already
taken place) to a discussion of Marxist concepts of the law.
	The last word on the above fragment. You, as materialist, should
rather defend everi single human life because you believe there is no
afterlife, don't you? In this case, defending murderers and assassins is
really cruel because it's defending monsters who rid others of something
unrecoverable - human life, that is. Isn't it atrocious?
				Best regards,
						Leszek Smutek



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---