Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 15:32:31 -0400
From: Vladimir Bilenkin <"achekhov-AT-unity.ncsu.edu"-AT-ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Spoons-Administartion


> 
> Vladimir wrote:
> 
> > Marxism is only a theoretical consciousness of the economic,
> > social, political, and military struggle of the revolutionary
> > proletariat.  Communism is a dialectical unity of both.
> 
> Heh, heh, isn't that a rather sectarian definition of "communism"?  I thought
> communism was a system in which all property was communal, and a communist
> was an advocate of such a system.  Shall we have a non-sectarian communist list?
> 
> -m
> 	Another delightful misuse of "sectarian" so typical of our
academic sufferers for the humanity in general and their quest 
for a new "global humanism."  Definition cannot be "sectarian." It can
be either false or true in a concrete historical juncture. Those who
believe in "pluralism" habitually confuse opinion with truth.  That's why
"pluralism" becomes an idelogical cover-up for slavish conformism of the
educated class. 
 
I can also think about a number of "sects" I would be
proud to belong to.
For Social-Democratic Philistines, for example, those few in
 Zimmerwald were "sectarians,"  some of whom they even executed a few
years later. In 1917, the Bolsheviks were "sectarians" too when they
opposed the "revolutionary" majority of the Soviets. Too bad they did
not know about "pluralism" then.

As to "communism," Marx and Lenin often used this world 
(as well as "socialism")not to designate the final goal
 of the movement, let alone a "system  a system in which
 all property was communal," but as a PROCESS or practical
 historical movement inherent in the CONCEPT of communism.

"Shall we have a non-sectarian communist list?"

We may but only at the cost of having a conformist communist list;
and since conformist communism is an oxymoron the list's name will be
a misnomer.

Vladimir


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