Date: Thu, 11 Dec 97 15:18:57 GMT
From: Ola_Eriksson-AT-flamman.interact.se (Ola Eriksson)
Subject: M-G: Freedom<>communism; What came first; the chicken or the egg ?


In the philosophy of capitalism, are they trying to overtake the materialism from the communism by by making shedules like this:

  100%                                                                100%
  F<-l--------------------------------------------------------------c-->R
  r  i                                                              o   e
  e  b                                                              m   g
  e  e                                                              m   u
  d  r                                                              u   l
  o  a                                                              n   a
  m  l                                                              i   t
     i                                                              s   i
     s                                                              m   o
     m                                                                  n

Even some leftist-people would agree about what this shedule are trying to describe, especially anarchists, or "socialist-libertarians".

Some time I don=B4t belive "fredoom" even is a word one can proof have a logic contents. If a person live in the desert, and no one is trying to force him to work for low wages, because no one even want to employ him, is this circumstances a free way of living ? If a rich person live in a big expensive flat, and had to pay for the flat every month, is he a person who isn=B4t free ?
If the same word "freedom" are used to describe the cases are there a contradiction in expression of this word, a logic conflict.

So in what sense can one say that communism make *freedom* for the mankind ?

Wednesday December 10 1997 11:29, Robert Malecki skrev till Ola Eriksson:

RM> What is needed in Latin america as elsewhere is not heroic but
RM> suicidal politics based on guerilla warfare but a Leninist combat
RM> party to arm the proletariat and set up workers governments.

I don=B4t know what you are trying to describe, but as I said earlier, even good communist can be bad soldiers, and the other way round.

 RM> in extremely poor contries.. The history changes every day. The
 RM> ideology show us how we want to change the history. But my *practice*,
 RM> is not a straight road, where my closest allied are people with the
 RM> same marxist-leninist opinion as my opinion. My comrades are
 RM> anarchists, even liberals, sometime communists.

 RM> This is hardly Marxism but making politics a personal experience..

I would say it IS. Analyzis of theories are less marxism in my opinion as using marxism to analyze the interests of classes. The need of a change, and the need of our rights have workers; whether they are rasists or reactionairies.The progressive "pojama people" doesn=B4t need socialism; they need to talk about it ! That=B4s marxism !

OE> My best comrades are not communists at all, they are workers with a
OE> good understanding of our needs.When we striked on the highmill here
OE> in Lulea one of the worst rasists and reactionarys amongst the workers
OE> went the most concious leaders of the resistance. His will of fighting
OE> for his class, didn=B4t depend of theorethical conciousness, but just
OE> conciousness of his class and he went one of the best leaders of that
OE> strike. What else is moore important for a good marxist to know ?

 RM> Thus the necessity of understanding theory connected to practice. In
 RM> this case the United front of all layers of workers despite their
 RM> backward conciousness against the bosses...

Yes, and I think this is the right way to understand marxism. Marxism is a tool to analyze the hidden class-interests beyond the ideologies.

       --/ Ola Eriksson olae-AT-flamman.interact.se

... fyra av fem personer anser att den femte =E4r en idiot


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