From: hanus@epas.utoronto.ca (Peter John Hanus)
Subject: Re: Kommunist Kanada 
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 08:50:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.211713.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>As for the commies, I could tell you why Yugo communish was/is worse/better
>than the bad "revionist" communism a la Kruschev or why Chairman Mao was
>the only real communist. (BTW Jean Paul Sartre was a Maoist).I still remember
>this discussion years ago in grade six where they pushed all that commie
>crap about China and what a wonderful system it was. This was in the 70's,
>ten years after the Cultural Revolution and 20 years after all those commie
>Liberals in North America thought of Mao as some kind of savior.These
>commies also thought the same about pre-1945 Stalin. I have access to
>propaganda from the period from so-called democrats - scum - who praised
>Stalin as a nationalist and talked about his noble opposition to Hitler.
>And then there was all those Liberal commies who went nuts over Lenin.
>Silly Liberals.... 

Well, while on the topic of Russian Marxists and Hitler . . .
Lenin writes in _Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder_: " . . .
all attention must be concentrated on the next step . . . on seeking
out the forms of transition or approach to the proletarian revolution.
 . . . In order that the entire class [the proletariat] . . . may take
up such a position, propaganda and agitation alone are not enough.
the masses must have their own political experience.  Such is the
fundamental law of all great revolutions: it has been necessary . . .
to realize through their own painful experience . . . the absolute
inevitability of a dictatorship of the extreme reactionaries . . . as
the only alternative to a dictatorship of the proletariat, in order to
turn them resolutely towards communism" (vol. Xvi, p. 72-73).

As such, with the rise of fascism, many Marxists had figured that the
true historical role of fascism was, in essence, the last stand of the
bourgeoisie.  This, making the proletariat's desparate situation
obvious (by removing the false consciousness/legitimation of
democracy), was an intermediatory stage in the historical evolution
towards socialism.  Thus fascism was "not to last longer than a few
months" and communists did not need to resist it.  Stalin's "noble
opposition to Hitler" came only after the Soviet Union was invaded.

The "natural evolution to socialism" has been for Marxists throughout
their history much the same as "the second coming" has been for
Fundamentalists, everything is a sign (and when it doesn't work out
some 'a priori' explanation relieves their conscience).  Marxism is
a product of the Enlightenment, science had come to "enlighten" us
from such myths as religion.  Marx had "discovered" the scientific
underpinnings for history; that is, how capitalism's inner
contradictions would eventually (and "naturally") lead to its
collapse.  In reality he created a new metaphysical belief that is not
much more than a secularized Christianity, and guess who Marx is?

>
>As for having met communists, there is this chap at the University of Western
>Ontario who is a professional communist. I attended one of his lectures
>on the glories of Albanian communism and why other versions of communism
>were rubbish. Fun guy. Also heads up the club that wants to slaughter our
>good psychology prof Phillippe Rushton (re race/penis size and "racism").
>He was at this one rally and said that there was an evil right wing
>Nazi conspiracy - and everyone was part of it : the US government, neo-
>Nazis, "holocaust deniers", bussinessman and academics. You name it, he
>will add them on his list. Wotta guy.

I'm not entirely sure how "good" Dr. Rushton is--though I believe his
work can be rebutted through normal academic channels, not through censorship.

--
Peter Hanus
hanus@epas.utoronto.ca



Newsgroups: can.general