From: "Marcus Strom" <MSTROM-AT-nswtf.org.au>
Date:          Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:04:55 GMT+10
Subject:       Re: Semantics and Violence (was: Conservatives win..)


Dear o Dear

I wrote all the following before, then I remebered the Philippines. 
There is anti-communist hysteria in th media in the Philippines. 
Anti-communism there is stronger than anywhere I have ever been. It 
is not safe to be an open communist, the party (split and maoist as 
it is) organises illegally. Yet, the communist party, its name is 
dear to the heart of advanced workers and peasants. This is the 
reality. We can get all squeemish if *we* don't like the name 
communist, but in practice, the term communist has been a tribune to 
world's working class. We must win the term, cleanse it of its 
revisionist, trotskyist and stalinist muck and actually win.

The softies who say that we can't use the term communist because 'the 
workers' equate it with stalinism are dilletentes, and are not 
serious about their politics.

When you form the NICE PEOPLE PARTY, send me your party program and 
I'll consider...
___________________________________________

I wrote this stuff before. It is of a low standard because it is a 
low standard debate. Why did i bother?...

Anyone who thinks that the ruling class is going to give up without a 
war is barmy. Therefore, we must prepare the revolutionary working 
class to fight from the outset.

Why do you seem to be insisting that we don't use the term communist? 
This argument is 150 years old. In 1848, Marx and Engels defended the 
use of the term communist / communism. We are communists. From that 
point on, people diluted the term - social democrat became the word. 
And that's exactly what happened.

If we decide to use the term 'Nice People-ists', but actually act 
like communists - IE prepare the working class to rule society 
through violent overthrow of the state, then, as soon as we start 
being successful, the ruling class will say 'look, these Nice People, 
they aren't Nice People at all, they're communists!"

We can swear blue in the face "no, we aren't communists, we are NICE 
PEOPLE!" and it won't matter. Even if we win the name NICE PEOPLE, 
the ruling class will turn the term Nice People into a terror term. 
Small shopkeepers will lock up their shutters if they know Nice 
People start organising in their areas. The social democrats will 
howl at the Nice People infilitrating the unions. Nice People will be 
responsible for all manner of calamities.

In my experience, working class people see through bullshit. People 
will be put off by what ever term revolutionaries are known by if 
they are acting as revolutionaries in a non revolutionary period. 
When, in practice, in my day to day political work as a trade union 
official, I do not tell everyone I am a communist. People know I am a 
revolutionary.

Very few people become members of political organisations because of 
names. They become involved through practice.

You may then say, so what does it matter what we are called? If this 
is your attitude, then you should have no problem with the term 
communist. I think that the scientific name for the revolutionary 
organisation of the working class is the communist party.

As revolutinaries, we have to rid our past of the muck of its 
stalinist and trotskyist past. How better to do this than winning the 
communist party, and doing it in practice.

For those comrades from Militant. You know that no matter what you 
are called, you are red baited. Militant have had this experience. 
They are not communist, but act at times in a revolutionary way - so 
they are red baited.

However, when accused of wanting to overthrow capitalism through 
violent revolution, they deny it. They claim that it is only the 
ruling class that wants violence. Well this is wrong. The ruling 
class would love it if they didn't need violence to control the 
system - but the reality is that they do. And we need violence to 
overthrow the system.

On the comparison with Indonesia. Any revolutionary period that 
develops in the world will not be isolated to one country. Any 
successful revolution will need to be spread, or it will die.

Indonesia's problem was that the PKI attempted and alliance with the 
'progressive' bourgeoisie. This killed the revolution. In Australia, 
a revolutionary period will have immediate repurcussions in 
Indonesia. For there to be a revolution in Australia, it will require 
the armed proletariat taking power for their own democratic 
organisations - workers councils and the like. There will be a major 
world crisis, not isolated from the rest of the world. In the 
unlikely situation that Australia were to have a successful 
revolution in isolation from the rest of the world, the immediate 
priorities of the communist party and the revolutionary working class 
and other revolutionary parties is to shore up proletarian power in 
australia and spreading it to other countries.

I would imagine, for their to be a communist party in australia with 
this possibility it would be part of a world party of communists. We 
would have members in Indonesia. We would seek them to develop 
solidarity with the australian revolution.




> 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 ---
> 


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

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