[Marxism] On the brink of Armageddon

[Aaron]

Sorry for the delayed response.

>Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:31:48 -0300
>From: "Néstor Gorojovsky" <nmgoro at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] On the brink of Armageddon
>
>2008/8/13, Aaron <aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm>:
>> At 12:44 PM -0300 8/10/08, Néstor Gorojovsky wrote:
>>  >How long will it take until a proUS Quisling is murdered by a
>>  >terrorist somewhere between the Central Baltic and the Caspian?
>>
>>  Watch your language, Nestor!
>>
>>  Killing a proUS Quisling is not terrorism! I wouldn't even call it "murder".
>>
>>  Actually, killing a head of state is a way of carrying out warfare without killing innocent people, so it's the opposite of "terrorism".
>>
>>   - Aaron
>
>I assume you wrote tongue-in-cheek, Aaron.

Not at all!

>But I would anyway make a further point. Just in case.
>
>The term "terrorism" has a different meaning when used by an
>imperialist politician (and this is a meaning that you are absolutely
>right in lambasting) and a very different one when used by a
>socialist.

I'm aware of the various uses of the word "terrorism".

>We socialists have always and consistently believed that
>terrorism was a political tactics which demobilized the masses and
>attempted to substitute individual heroism for mass action, thus we
>have always rejected it even though we could understand its origins
>and the honesty of its proferred goals.

Although I think it's a bit presumptuous of you to speak for all
"socialists" -- only followers of Grant-Woods can do that ;-) -- I
grant you that the position you express is rather normal on the left.
But, given that the word "terrorism" conjurs up in the minds of
ordinary people violence against _them_ and not just against the
ruling class and its agents, using it to describe targeted killings
of -- or sub-fatal attacks on -- the latter is defamation of those so
labelled and makes it easier for the state to attack those who are
seen as supporting them.

I think that one can just as well say that support for individual
military resistance, such as that of somebody like Camilo Mejia, is
an attempt "to substitute individual heroism for mass action", but I
don't see too many on the left making that argument in such cases of
non-violent individual action. I suspect that many socialists and
other leftists who make the argument you repeat against so-called
"terrorism" are really trying to protect themselves against
repression without appearing to support the state. Why else has the
"individual heroism" of Camilo Mejia received so much support on the
left, while the far greater heroism of Hasan Akbar has been ignored?

>Killing a head of state, in this case, might well pull us to
>thermonuclear war. Unless one is nuts, I don't think we should
>seriously consider a "revolutionary thermonuclear war" but as a
>deterrent for imperialist bourgeoisies. That is: a revolutionary state
>with thermonuclear capacities disarms all of its conventional weaponry
>and publicly declares that the single answer to any kind of attack
>will be to unleash thermonuclear hell on its enemies.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that any revolutionary state that
comes into existence is unlikely to have thermonuclear weapons, isn't
it not only cheaper but a lot more consistent with proletarian
morality to have a reasonable number of agents planted where they can
retaliate against imperialist aggression by killing powerful people
in or of the imperialist country? Of course, as with any deterrent,
it's necessary to let those who might suffer such retaliation know,
in general, what fate they may suffer if the government over which
they have great influence does attack the revolutionary state. The
same kind of deterrent might be used also to inhibit direct
imperialist intervention against a revolution that hasn't achieved
state power, such as in that in El Salvador in the 1980's.

Moreover, I find it mind-boggling that you would propose that a
revolutionary government create some kind of hair-trigger for
thermonuclear war, while you seem worried about the far-fetched
possibility that assassination of some pro-imperialist head of state
might trigger such a war.

>Anything else, isn't even worth our consideration. And the "murdered
>Quisling" hypothesis on my previous mail was, IMHO, exactly that kind
>of "anything else".
>
>--
>
>Néstor Gorojovsky