Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 20:22:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Kevin Cabral <kcabral-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Semantics and Violence (was: Conservatives win..)


On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Marcus Strom wrote:

> I didn't "dredge up statements from several years ago". I actually 
> looked at your *program* Militant: Where we stand. In it, it is 
> claimed that Militant are opposed to violent revolution, see 
> socialism as coming through an "enabling bill in parliament backed by 
> the labour movement" which will nationalise the top 200 hundred 
> companies.
> 
> Real knowledge of Militant? What does this mean. You say one thing 
> and do another? Workers are too stupid to understand your real agenda 
> and so we must avoid dirty words like communism and pretend that we 
> are social democrats? When do you let workers in on the secret?
> 
> This approach is patronising and undemocratic.

        Back to two questions, violence and the modern semantics of
communism. 

        First, violence. How can violence accomplish something signifigant
in a country like Australia where imperialism would be knocking on the
door on the first major outbreak, or even possibility of revolution. They
did the same thing to Indonesia, why would'nt an Indonesia like slaughter
happen in Australia if violence was on the agenda? 

        And on communism, do you agree with me Marcos that in many
countries, including America, communism is synonymous with the Stalinist
dictatorships of the past? There may be a few like Italy, or South Africa
with communist tradition where this doesn't take effect; but would'nt you
agree that ressurecting the word communism, and the beautiful hammer and
sickle are petty tasks for after the revolution. So why insist that the
party call themselves communist?
                                                
Kevin
Cols, Oh USA                           





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

     ------------------