"As I wrote, one of the ways to define if a nation is oppress, is to examine whether the people from this nation are subjected to, among other things, to racism, economic control, and blocked on the right of those people to exercise their own culture. Nationalist ideology can answer some of this oppression. Demands by nationalists movements to nationalize resources, to practice ones culture, and to have pride in ones origins, can be very progressive. We should unite with these movements while criticizing elements that are not progressive and trying to push the struggle towards a real emancipation of the nation."

"Your criticism seems to come from the Anarchistic philosophy that claims that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This have not only been proven to be historically untrue, leaders of peoples movements have gave their lives to the people, but problematic in a class society."

"The divisions in class society are not only defined by property, but by intellectual privilege. After a revolution in order to provide the masses with real democracy it’s up to the leadership of the communist party to exercise dictatorship over the old capitalists, and to provide the masses with answers to political questions."

" As was seen in the Cultural Revolution the masses make history while the leaders provide leadership. This process of the dictatorship over the bourgeois has been proven historically to be the only way to radically advance the rights and living conditions of the proletarian."

"It was hard for me to understand your writing, but I hope that you are not implying that the blue pigs are part of the proletarian."

You keep avoiding the discussion about nationalism. The strategy of “divide and control” was employed by all imperialist forces against native populations. Israel is not very different from any other imperialist army in that regard. But to this too, nationalism can answer by uniting all section of society against the real enemy.

I was not referring to this or that leader, but to their line. And it is a question of line, since you have stated that “all nationalism is bad”. Can leaders and movement sell out? Sure. But when the masses are fighting we unite with them and try to influence them towards the right direction. Again, your line will only force you to tail and to passively oppose any liberation movement, and to only unite with the small number of people who agree with your ideas. Political movements happen sometime spontaneously, without a coherent line, and it’s up to leaders, to people who have learned reality for what it is, to channel these movements towards a liberation path.

What I’m saying is not that the masses are to dumb, but that the condition that makes one proletarian, do not allow one to dig into deep political question. This, again, goes back to the question of who is the proletarian. Is the proletarian is only define by his relationship to production and the amount of money that he makes? Or is a proletarian is defined most importantly, as Marx emphasis so many times, by social experience? Is it just a coincidence that a revolution has rarely taken place in the so-called first-world and rebellions and revolution have been happening all the time in the third world?
Knowing how to change and understanding reality is not on the same level as understanding that everyone should be able to receive food and water. Marx (and Lenin and Mao) have written intensively about the nature of capitalism, analysis of the state, and the ways to transform society, is this something that someone who works twelve hours a day seven days a week have time to study? Someone who is always in search for the next available job? Someone who is a proletarian?
It’s interesting that you as someone who is the first to criticize nationalist movements are the one to oppose the need for leaders who have study political questions deeply. What is this expression of nationalism if not the inability of the masses to understand reality deeply? Your line will only take you down the road of relativism. According to you, the fact that the Hamas is leading in Palestine (and the hamas is enjoying a mass support) is due to the masses “ability to analysis their life experience”.
Again, if the definition to what is proletarian is by looking at an old Marxist book as a dogma, then yes, the Israeli people are the “proletarian”. They, indeed, do not need leaders, since they enjoy leisure time (another term that Marx used to define who is not the proletarian) and have the time to study political question.

And I don’t need to tell the masses about the need for leaders. The masses themselves understand this concept and cherish people who give their life to the people.

The revolution in China was reversed by a coup that put capitalist at the top of the communist party. That, however, does not negate the vest advances that happened under the leadership of Mao and the Chinese communist party. From a country control by imperialism where million of people have starved to death, China by the death of Mao has doubled life expectancy. It took capitalism hundreds of years to arrive out of feudalism, for a movement that has been around for only 150 years, we achieved a lot. Part of the process of learning is making mistakes, and Maoist movements until today are the most advance element in third world country. There is no other leftist movement in third world countries that provide the possibilities that Maoism offers and this is why just in the last twenty years Maoists have waged revolutions in Peru, Philippines, Nepal, and India. There is no other Marxist movement who has managed to achieve what Maoism has been achieving until today. That is all due to the fact that Maoists have ever related to Marxism as a dogma, but as guideline.

Your comment about the pigs again goes back to your definition of what and who is the proletarian.

Take care,

"You keep avoiding the discussion about nationalism. The strategy of “divide and control” was employed by all imperialist forces against native populations. Israel is not very different from any other imperialist army in that regard. But to this too, nationalism can answer by uniting all section of society against the real enemy."

"I was not referring to this or that leader, but to their line. And it is a question of line, since you have stated that “all nationalism is bad”."

"Can leaders and movement sell out? Sure."

"But when the masses are fighting we unite with them and try to influence them towards the right direction. Again, your line will only force you to tail and to passively oppose any liberation movement, and to only unite with the small number of people who agree with your ideas."

" Political movements happen sometime spontaneously, without a coherent line, and it’s up to leaders, to people who have learned reality for what it is, to channel these movements towards a liberation path."

"And I don’t need to tell the masses about the need for leaders. The masses themselves understand this concept and cherish people who give their life to the people."

"What I’m saying is not that the masses are to dumb, but that the condition that makes one proletarian, do not allow one to dig into deep political question."

So what am I suppose to do now? Ha? Explain to you again that Marxism is not a religion? That the proletarian is defined by more than just its relation to production? Why Marxism is useless when it does not applied to reality, to practice? That the proletarian because of its SOCIAL EXPRIANCE is unable to attend studying, usually not able to read at all? Give you some more examples to why third world nationalism can play a progressive rule? Give you some more examples to the vest amount of privilege that Israeli enjoy and their consistence support for their government?

My last statement was not an appraisal to Mao, who I (and any other Maoists) do criticize on some aspects, but an example to how Marxism when applied to realty and is not relate to as, again, a dogma, can bring to the masses.

From your answer I suspect that you don’t understand the definition of leaders according to Marxism, or nationalism.

But let stop it here. I’m a busy person, and this discussion is going nowhere. I would like to thank you for this opportunity and to wish you luck in what ever you do.

Take care,

“People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. “
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/select...

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/oncorrect.html

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/select...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/wit...

"So what am I suppose to do now? Ha? Explain to you again that Marxism is not a religion? That the proletarian is defined by more than just its relation to production? Why Marxism is useless when it does not applied to reality, to practice? That the proletarian because of its SOCIAL EXPRIANCE is unable to attend studying, usually not able to read at all? Give you some more examples to why third world nationalism can play a progressive rule? Give you some more examples to the vest amount of privilege that Israeli enjoy and their consistence support for their government?
"

plees due!

divide and rule

"In politics and sociology, divide and rule (also known as divide and conquer)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

LOL!