"I’m not denying that there is a proletarian in your country, what I’m arguing is that the Israeli proletarian is very small and insignificant."

Yea, I’m very busy at this time of year, so I write quickly and jump from issue to issue. I will try to elaborate on my earliest points, while answering your latest comment. I don’t know, however, for how long I can keep this debate going.

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 of Chaves is out of context. Unlike poppet government before him, Chaves have provided his people with education, half care, and means to live. He should be supported in his struggle against imperialism. Your line will only force you to criticize the oppressed and to unite with the small group of people who agree with you. And, unlike what you wrote, the ruling classes in Venezuela are actually terrified by Chaves.

Can this struggle by the Venezuela be drained and will only create another ruling elite? It might. That, however, is no excuse to not supporting movements who oppose imperialism. It’s up to communists in Venezuela to push the struggle beyond the limited scope of nationalism, while uniting with the just cause of opposing imperialism. Nelson Mandela and Gandy led nationalist movements. Did these movements have some incorrect line? Sure. But the struggle of the South African people and the Indian people against imperialism was just.

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.

Dialectical materialism is a subject for a couple of books; I doubt that a sound bite of information can be enough to provide with a clear understanding of this philosophy. Never the lass, it is important for you to get some understanding of the correct way to view the world.
Any object in the universe is driven by contradiction. For example, the concept of “life” is defined by “death”. Life would not be “life” without “death” and “death” is what gives “life” its meaning. “Death” is the destructive side of the contradiction. When death wins over the contradiction (the individual man is dead) the whole process of the contradiction between life and death comes to an end. Furthermore, the contradiction between life and death is what pushes the whole process into its natural end---death, There are a lot of contradictions in phenomena, but it is important to notice what is the principal (the most affective) contradiction that drive the whole process forward. In the world today, in regard to what define imperialism, the principle contradiction is between the imperialist countries and the oppressed countries. The phenomena of imperialism could not be possible if it was not for the exploitation (contradiction) of the oppress nation/countries. The destructive side if this contradiction, the side that wants to do away and to destroy the process are the oppress countries. When an oppress country stand for imperialism, there is a chance that the whole phenomena of “imperialism” can go out of existence.
Imperialism (and capitalism) because of the endless need of exploitation, creates its own “grave diggers” (destructive side). America today, the leading imperialist country owes trillions of dollars to foreign countries and is stock in Afghanistan-trying to build a gas line, and Iraq-trying to control the oil world market. On top of this, Iran is refusing to accept Washington demand for any country to open its market for foreign (American) investors. This is the some of the difficulties that America is dealing with today. So, when Venezuela comes along and brings even more anarchy into the system, it’s a good thing, and might take the whole process of American imperialism out of existence.
Think of the benefits and great opportunities that will happen if a country like the U.S. goes out of existence. Think what would happen when (among other things) corrupt government and dictators will stop receiving money and weapons, what a great day that would be!!!

Again, Marxism is not a dogma. All these people that you call “proletarian” are not proletarian just because their relationship to production. Again, the proletarian are the people who have nothing to loss. The people those because of their social experience are willing to put everything on the line for a better future. The people that you mention not only work for companies who pay somewhat of a living wages, they enjoy “Jewish privilege”. Class is not the only way do determine ones class. In America, for example, among some of the things that being white can provide one with, is the opportunity to receive a decant job, to not get arrested, get a decant education, or to get good treatment in any government facility. In other words, being white get you “white privilege”. In Israel being Jewish can get you “Jewish privilege”, and I feel that we both can think on a hundreds of things that one can receive in Israel from being Jewish. Sure, classes exist even in the Israeli society, but they do not constitute such different as to create a proletarian class of Israelis Jews. Furthermore, as I said before, Israel through the billions of dollars received from America can provide its citizens with living conditions that people in third world countries can only dream about.
Again, social experience is what determines your class. A worker, such in your country, can be dependent on imperialism and racism and to not be a proletarian. And in third world countries a peasant although owning a peace of land, because of the hard social conditions that he is living through, can unite with the proletarian.
Your definition of the proletarian seems to be consistence with some of Marx writings. A lot of changes in reality, however, have happened since than. And Marxism is a living science, not a dogma.

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.

Strikes do not define the proletarian. There are strikes and demonstrations in your country by government workers and students. That does not mean that all these people are the proletarian.

I did not understand your last statement about the support of Israelis to their government.

Take care,

For example, the concept of “life” is defined by “death”.

the contradiction between life and death is what pushes the whole process into its natural end---death

Can you elaborate on the second part of your question? It’s been a while since I took philosophy classes, and the words that you use are kind of hard for me.

I don’t know if relates to the second part of your comment, but its important to notice that it’s Dialectical MATERIALISM. We relate to the things that can manifest themselves in the material world. The question of whether a tree that falls in a forest makes any noise if there is no one to hear it has no meaning to us Marxist. Life and death manifest themselves in the real life, in the material world.

Ill answer you in a couple of days.

So ill try to answer your both of your questions here (although you did not provide me with a deeper understanding of your question).

When a process comes to an end, the new process that fallows takes a “leap”. When a chick comes out of an egg, it is a chicken not an egg. When a human is burn, it is not a dependable human embryo anymore; it is a full living and breathing human. It’s very important to notice the “leaps”. A process never ends and become something new by gradually developing into the new process/phenomena. When a person dies he does not die in stages. The whole body at curtain moment becomes dead, and a new process, the contradiction that move the process of the dead body takes place.
Unlike the metaphysic and the religious philosophies that uphold that things do not change (a man is man a woman is a woman, god created the world and nothing changed, “human nature”). Marxism understands that in reality everything changes and that matter cannot exist without its own contradiction.

China has been a long time an imperialist country. Through a military coup China has become a social-imperialist state. The contradiction between America and China are different then the contradiction between America, as the leading imperialist country at the moment, and third world countries. I only mention the economic relations between China and America to describe the hard economic realities that Washington is facing today. If, for example, Saudi Arabia stop treading with Dollars and instead switch to Euros, America will go bankruptcy the next day. This economic necessity is one of the things that led Washington to invade Iraq. The Iraq war needs to be seen not just as a war for oil, but a war to control the world oil economy.
In Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson (one of the books that I recommended you) Johnson argues that America as a country that do not manufacture goods (it relies mostly on imported goods from third world countries) and owes so much in foreign debt will only lead to America going bankruptcy in a couple of years.

I urge you to try and stay focused.

If life & death are dialectical contradictions, and at death the dialectical process comes to an end, why can't you posit that at the moment of birth (or conception) that process terminates as well? Hence, either the dialectical process as defined by its two opposing poles of life & death is either a metaphisycal conjecture, or unsubstantiated wishful thinking, or in short, a dogma?

You were deriding the capitalistic and imperialistic nature of the USA, while ignoring the fact that a largest portion of her debt is held by China. That sheer fact indicates the latter's egregiously capitalistic nature as well, thus voiding your argument which had targete the uniqueness of the USA.

Your last remark did not deal with my questions directly, or I had totally misunderstood it.

I would urge you to understand that I’m here to politically agitate. Israelis need to be confronted with an all around conception of political questions. The false unity here and in Israel between people who are objectively represent racism, genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and people who only “nicely” and passively oppose them, is ridicules. I’m not here to “focus”, I’m here to get Israelis off their asses and in to streets, off this website with its endless relative debate of “truth”, and into actively opposing their government. That would never happen if we keep a nonchalant liberal attitude, and only “focus” on theory as if it exists in the abstract with no relationship to action, to reality.

“If life & death are dialectical contradictions”, life and death are dialectical contradiction at a certain process.

“and at life and death this process comes to an end” all processes are driven by contradictions and therefore are dialectical by the very nature of what constitute a “process”. As Hegel, Engels & Lenin have repeatedly emphasized, even mechanical motion involves a contradiction, the most primitive form. This is even more true in an even more complex motions.

"...why can't you posit that at the moment of birth (or conception) that process terminates as well?"--This is playing word games & is totally meritless. Certainly, at the moment of birth (or conception), certain processes terminate & others begin. Where the statement goes off is in its casual, sloppy use of the words concerning contradiction without delving into what is actually contained in the concept.

" Hence, either the dialectical process as defined by its two opposing poles of life & death is either a metaphysical conjecture, or unsubstantiated wishful thinking, or in short, a dogma?"==This is simply more word games without any solid conceptual foundation. If only dialectics could be treated in such a simplistic mindless way, it would be so easy to become trained in its method of thought.

"You were deriding the capitalistic and imperialistic nature of the USA, while ignoring the fact that a largest portion of her debt is held by China. That sheer fact indicates the latter's egregiously capitalistic nature as well, thus voiding your argument which had targete the uniqueness of the USA."---- The uniqueness of American imperialism can be seen through hundreds of military bases deployed around the world, control of exploitative organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF, and the support through weapons and money to corrupt and racist regimes around the world.
People in China should fight and go against their oppressive government, and people in Israel should oppose their colonial government and American imperialism which is aiding and sustaining the corrupt and racist state of Israel.

My last comment, indeed, did not deal directly with your question. I was trying to give some more background to economic realities that Washington is facing.

Take care,

For one aiming at agitating, you come out pretty agitated.
What's this business with bottoms? perhaps you should try the recipe consisting of "Celery! Apples! Walnuts! Grapes! In a mayonnaise sauce!"

In any event, casually dismissing my arguments as "playing with words" is a double edges sword, with limited contribution. Your out of focus reply to my question regarding China, doesn't add much either.

ATB

“What's this business with bottoms?”
You’re the psychologist, you tell me….

Take a moment (or two) and construct your argument, again. Make sure to include how I ignored your questions and some concrete examples.

Your right, I might not have the sufficient knowledge to answer this.

Its also can be my obscure and weird writings that enable us to understand each other. I will think about your question, and maybe in the future I will find a better answer.

Take care,

Eizik, Eizik, Eizik, we have been flirting for years anonymously, and this is where you choose to address me and to expose our secret relations? What would people think of you, a respectable leftist man with a good-for-nothing-Maoist? If I was a man and we were to live in Russia 70 years ago, this would be very problematic. Ill answer your comment body, but you owe me a date.

Life and death are general contradiction in life. When one is dyeing (I’m dyeing over here) these contradictions come into their fullest expression. Death can be symbolize in a lot of ways, car accident, a daises, the Israeli army shooting one for living while being Palestinian etc. etc. (focus, focus). Its not either life or death. My friend, we are all going to die (hopefully after the revolution, comrade) and at that moment, death will take over the contradiction, and our bodies will become something else, not human.

According to what you’re saying, an egg is either an egg or either a chicken (or an omelet).

I can’t have at this moment a productive debate; I hope I answered your question.

Are you a woman?

And how would you define a “woman”?

female human being

You are confusing sex and gender.

I'm not.
You asked for my definition, I gave you my definition. If you have another definition, don't be shy. give your definition, and please give my an answer (to any definition you like).

You can write to me in Hebrew. I would actually prefer it.

And why would you like to know my gender? You should read my writing and analysis for what they are, not based on who I am. The law of gravity is true not because a man discovered it, but because it is scientifically correct.

You are confusing science and art.

To say “women live in a patriarchal society” is very different than saying “I like to read Tolstoy”; the first statement should be studied and applied to reality and if incorrect is untrue. The second statement can be true subjectively.

Virginia Woolf’s “in a room of ones own” is in my view is beautifully written. Her feminist’s statements in the book about the society at that time are scientifically true.

Well, I urge you to relate to all my statements as if they are a scientific. You should take all my statements and apply them to reality, experiment with them. For me this is more important than if you just agree with me. How would I know if I’m wrong if you would not tell me? How would we find the best scientific way to liberate humanity, if only one person would discus and think about that?

What’s important to me should be important to you, it our future.

I’m not going to answer that question; I do, however, request that you ask yourself if it would make a difference in how you relate to my writings if I was man or woman.

Take care,

I think that this is an excellent question that I and any other leftist person have been wondering about. Why do Israelis ignore any critics or different outlook’s that contradict what they are taught by the Zionist propaganda machine?

Indeed, what’s up with Israelis?
How can most of Israelis support the racist acts of their government against Palestinians for years and then be surprised when Palestinians terrorist group emerge? Why is it that most Israelis have supported the occupation of Palestine and governments of the right and the left have built more and more settlements? Why is it that Israel have pulled out of Lebanon, not because of the hundreds of civilians that were tortured and killed because of this occupation, but because of a movement of mothers who have convinced Israelis that its not wisely to sacrificing Israelis soldiers? Why do Israelis don’t lift a finger against the millions of dollars received from evangelical Christian who describe Jews as the killers of Christ and as people who will need to be converted or killed, while describing anyone who oppose the occupation of Palestine as Anti-Semitic? Why is it that Israelis have never demonstrated against the selling of weapons by the state of Israel to dictators who killed thousands of people in South America? Why is it that Israelis have never opposed the support of their government to the Apartheid government in South Africa? Why do most Israelis support the building of an apartheid wall that is built on the land of thousands of Palestinian and in direct valuation of the green line?

Even in America, the leading imperialist country, millions of people have demonstrated against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq even before it was known that there were no weapons of mass-destruction and right after 9/11. But in Israel, 97% of Israelis have supported the invasion of Lebanon, against an organization that would not exist if it wasn’t for the Israeli brutal occupation of Lebanon, and have withdrawn their support to the war only after Israeli soldiers (not the death of more then a thousands civilians) have died. And even now, the political debate in the Israeli society is not about how to avoid more occupation and wars, but who is a good candidate to win the war against the Palestinians, who can manage and win the war against the Hisbala.

You don’t need to be a communist to oppose all of this.

I’m proud to stand against everything that people here, or in Israel support.

You keep nitpicking and relating to the superficial.

The question was “why do most people here don’t take you seriously?”
To which I have answered, that Israelis in general don’t listen to other views or act against oppression.

You have no right to demand from others to reply to me when you, who according to your own answer agree with me, but still relate to the superficial. Take some responsibility and deal with my comments maturely, instead of immediately accusing me of “disrespecting Israelis”.

The question was not "why do most people here don’t take you seriously?"

The question was "why do most people here don’t take you scientifically?"

You keep nitpicking. There is no way that you have meant something other than how I interpret you.
Deal with my comment, or stop wasting my time.

"How can most of Israelis support the racist acts of their government against Palestinians for years and then be surprised when Palestinians terrorist group emerge? Why is it that most Israelis have supported the occupation of Palestine and governments of the right and the left have built more and more settlements?"

"Why is it that Israel have pulled out of Lebanon, not because of the hundreds of civilians that were tortured and killed because of this occupation, but because of a movement of mothers who have convinced Israelis that its not wisely to sacrificing Israelis soldiers?"

"Why do Israelis don’t lift a finger against the millions of dollars received from evangelical Christian who describe Jews as the killers of Christ and as people who will need to be converted or killed, while describing anyone who oppose the occupation of Palestine as Anti-Semitic?"

"Why is it that Israelis have never demonstrated against the selling of weapons by the state of Israel to dictators who killed thousands of people in South America?"

"Why do most Israelis support the building of an apartheid wall that is built on the land of thousands of Palestinian and in direct valuation of the green line?"

"Even in America, the leading imperialist country, millions of people have demonstrated against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq even before it was known that there were no weapons of mass-destruction and right after 9/11."

"But in Israel, 97% of Israelis have supported the invasion of Lebanon, against an organization that would not exist if it wasn’t for the Israeli brutal occupation of Lebanon..."

"...and have withdrawn their support to the war only after Israeli soldiers (not the death of more then a thousands civilians) have died. And even now, the political debate in the Israeli society is not about how to avoid more occupation and wars, but who is a good candidate to win the war against the Palestinians, who can manage and win the war against the Hisbala."

"You don’t need to be a communist to oppose all of this."

It's the old "bait-and-switch", my friend.

You’re the one who is actually blinded by his own ideology.
It’s an election year, and the democrats are trying to appeal to the people that they have dissertated for last six years. The Democrats not only wont pull out of Iraq, on some level they can’t. You’re the one, who is ignoring history, the war in Vietnam was ended by a conservative republican not by all the other democratic candidates who promised to stop the war (and only escalated it). This happened through a large movement of people in the streets (and the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese) who forced the ruling class to retreat and to appear “democratic”.
Stop ignoring the economic base of the capitalist system, and face reality and history for what it is, a contradiction between classes.

Once again I am dismayed by and exhibition of cant slogans. It seems as if an egregious miscomprehension is coupled with uncopasetic reading of current events.

The bill is not going to end the war. Leading democrats have said that it does not matter if bush veto the bill, the democrats would still found the war. Under the logic of “support our troops” and “we love America” the democrats are not going to be seen as the people who will stop the founding of the war. The democrats have promised that they would change things when they have a majority, now they have it and they are still not doing anything. Most of them have supported the war numerous times, of have not done anything in the last four years. And both Democrats and republican uphold the idea of the U.S. domination over the rest of the world.

The war is not the only horrific acts of the bush administration. Torture, women’s rights, theocracy, war on Iran, and to all of that the democrats have no answer.

Woman would never the gain the rights, or the right to vote if they would put their face in the electoral politics. The Black nation would never gain their rights if it wasn’t for massive movements out of the electoral politics. And the Vietnam War would have never been stopped if it wasn’t for people in the streets.

But don’t let all this facts ruined your liberal-utopian view of the world.

Please don’t respond to me with some half-ass comments composed of sloppy words.

P.S.
What’s the difference between saying “I support the troops, not the war” and “I support the rapist not the rape”?

Hmm, that "bottom" is here again.

Somehow it looks like petulence leads you to gnaw this exchange down into degenerated tone and content.

As for your P.S., I may be wrong but aren't you the one more adroit in drawing comparecement with such despicable obcenity.

“I may be wrong but aren't you the one more adroit in drawing comparecement with such despicable obcenity.”
That depends how you define the occupation of Iraq. If for you the bombing of hundred of thousand of Iraqis, torture of Iraqis civilians (some of it sexual) and results that have led to more then 600.000 civilians dead (all based on lies and to control the oil market) is not on the scale of rape, than yes, I am the one who making obscene accusation.

It is sad that you have chosen to ignore the rest of my comment.

Oddly enough, you have elected to pontificate absolute truths under an article based on a premise of openness to alternative points of view, in what seems like a blunt attempt to hammer people into lock step march hailing your very own peculiar myopic, albeit not completely devoid of merit, view.

So, there are two things that you are doing here.

A. You are ignoring the subject, the question of “democracy” in the U.S., and pushing this discussion to become something else.

B. You are trying to scull me into your very limited definition of “openness”. Real democracy is not a debate between the extreme right and the centered right, between the very passive “left” and the very active and vigorous right.
I think that the situation in Palestine is horrendous, and its time for Israelis who don’t know what’s going on in Palestine, to be “open” to the understanding that they are responsible on some level to the horrendous acts committed by their government, and the Israelis who do know what’s going on, to do something.

I really don’t understand what you want from me. If I were to call my self “Sharon more then ever” and talk about how Palestinians should be treated as a second class citizens and expelled, I would be considered as a legitimate debater on this web-site. But when I come and uphold Marxism and try to awaken Israelis in the direction of some activism and responsibility towards the rest of the world, or god forbid towards Palestinians, it’s unacceptable.

The condition that most of humanity is living under, require action by people. This is not just my truth, but objectively true. We can always debate on how to improve and help humanity, but we need to start some meaningful discussion.

All of this does not negates the very appreciated afford by you to expose Israelis to a better understanding of history.

That’s true, the real fundamental subject is why do Israelis are not doing enough against oppression committed by their own government. They do not need to do exactly “what I want them to do”, but they need to do something. Again, I do feel that Israelis pusses enough privilege to act. There is no reason that hundred of university students can pure into the streets and protest, and not do the same thing against the occupation.

It’s very easy for me to answer questions about history and democracy. But when it comes to Marxism, to debating you, I found my self opening books, searching the web, and writing very long and necessary answers that requires a lot of time, something that I don’t have much of at the moment.

On a personal level, this might sound somewhat liberal and in direct contradiction to the spirit of Marxism, but I don’t have a lot of problems with your political orientation. I think its incorrect (I’m not fully liberal…) but I do think that you embody what a lot of Israelis should do. I’d rather at the moment, with my limited time, expose more and more liberals who are caught in a very problematic world view, to deep political questions and into the streets. Out of the whole “my truth your truth, we can all live in harmony” and into a direct struggle against oppression.

When I have the time to delve into deep questions of Marxism, you’ll be the first to know.

This is going to be my last comment on this website for this time period. If you write me an answer, I will happily read it.

"That’s true, the real fundamental subject is why do Israelis are not doing enough against oppression committed by their own government."

" They do not need to do exactly “what I want them to do”, but they need to do something. Again, I do feel that Israelis pusses enough privilege to act."

" There is no reason that hundred of university students can pure into the streets and protest, and not do the same thing against the occupation."

"It’s very easy for me to answer questions about history and democracy. But when it comes to Marxism, to debating you, I found my self opening books, searching the web, and writing very long and necessary answers that requires a lot of time, something that I don’t have much of at the moment."

"On a personal level, this might sound somewhat liberal and in direct contradiction to the spirit of Marxism, but I don’t have a lot of problems with your political orientation. I think its incorrect (I’m not fully liberal…) but I do think that you embody what a lot of Israelis should do. I’d rather at the moment, with my limited time, expose more and more liberals who are caught in a very problematic world view, to deep political questions and into the streets. Out of the whole “my truth your truth, we can all live in harmony” and into a direct struggle against oppression."

"When I have the time to delve into deep questions of Marxism, you’ll be the first to know."

I disagree with your statement that I just quote from Marxist books, I reviewed all my comments here and they all materialist, they all consist of examples from reality.

Marx, although brilliantly analyzing reality, have lived a long time ago, and had some false understandings. His theory, for example, that the third world countries should wait for the technologically “advance” European countries to make a socialist revolution suffers from Eurocentrism. That should lead us all Marxist to a couple of observations: 1. Marx had some limitation in understanding reality. 2. Truth exists regardless of who says it 3. Marxism is a living science and need to be applied to reality and not be based on books. 4. Its extremely important to study Lenin’s and Mao’s writings so we can elevated and applied Marxism to our days. (By the way, Marx was a strong advocate of the idea of the “dictatorship of the proletarian”).

Marxism is a very difficult science. Not only its needs to be correct by other fields of sciences, its need to be applied to reality. It would be very easy for me to come here and write “capitalism is bad”. That, however, would not salve a thing. To explain just this statement like that I would need to delve into “Capital” and “Imperialism the highest stage of Capitalism”, show how capitalism and imperialism affects the world and Israel in particular, and how capitalism gives rise and affect the occupation of Palestine. In short, reality is complex.
The questions that you arise, again, are complex. They involve an analysis of what makes a proletarian, labor aristocracy, historical investigation of revolutionary political movements and revolts by Israelis (to prove that sections of the Israeli society do have an interest in a change) how imperialism affects Israelis (to determine how many Israelis are depended on the exploitation of the third world) what conditions have changed from the times of Marx, and probably more questions that I cant think about right now. I don’t have time for all of this at the moment.

Ai, my friend, you keep dragging me into a debate that I have no time for. Your spirit of finding answers and searching for truth is admirable, but if you have some patience, we might be able to conduct this discussion in Hebrew, something that would allow us both to understand each other better.

Respect me, let me go.

B. You are trying to scull me into your very limited definition of “openness”. Real democracy is not a debate between the extreme right and the centered right, between the very passive “left” and the very active and vigorous right.

I would be considered as a legitimate debater on this web-site

I wish that what you are saying is true. I would love to debate this with you one day, and again, hopefully I’m wrong.

I disagree that demonstrations are irrelevant. The state can be exposed and people can be educated in a lot of ways through demonstrations.

Your point about the Democrats is true, there are not very different from the republicans. While the republicans never deny who they are, the democrats try to appear as something else. Its another example to how democracy can never be achieved in a class society (which is another subject for weeks and weeks of debates).

Happy May 1

P.S.
Here is how the Maoists in India are choosing to oppose the state. Hopefully their struggle will be connected to the Maoists in Nepal.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IC20Df01.htm...

"A Room of One's Own"

Cut the bullshit, and, with all respect, don't tell people what they should do or shouldn't do. And there's no need to repeat Clichés we've heard a thousand times before. If you want to answer the question, answer it, and if you don't - don't. That's all there's to it.

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

Are you a woman?

"You can write to me in Hebrew. I would actually prefer it."

gender is not interesting definition only sex important

I disagree with that, I think that gender is very interesting. Gender is socially constructed. Think, how do men in your society become “Manley” and “mescaline”? How do women become “feminine”?

gonads?

"I would urge you to understand that I’m here to politically agitate. Israelis need to be confronted with an all around conception of political questions. The false unity here and in Israel between people who are objectively represent racism, genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and people who only “nicely” and passively oppose them, is ridicules. I’m not here to “focus”, I’m here to get Israelis off their asses and in to streets, off this website with its endless relative debate of “truth”, and into actively opposing their government. That would never happen if we keep a nonchalant liberal attitude, and only “focus” on theory as if it exists in the abstract with no relationship to action, to reality."

Your first criticism of me is valid; I should start writing in Hebrew.

There are a lot of things that I would want Israelis to do, I doubt that I can write all of them here, or that they are possible.

There are a couple of simple things that Israelis can start doing right now. They can refuse to serve in the army. They can devote their Fridays (or any other day) and come demonstrate against the apartheid wall. They can start volunteering in a number of organizations that expose and fight the Israeli occupation. They should disengage themselves from trying to change things through the process of voting (and yes, I know that the Bolsheviks ran candidates to the Doma) and instead should engage in a mass civil disobedience against the government of Israel.

In general, Israelis need to stop seeing themselves as a part of one collective which aims and goals are represented by the Israeli government and army.

I do not have the time right now to have a productive debate. Read the essays that I sent you, they would deepen your understanding of the relations between theory and practice, the need for leaders and a party, and in general give you a better understanding of the science of revolution.

Take care,

I think that what you are raising is extremely important. I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, I would like, however, to add something.

I don’t think that enough Israelis are fighting the racist acts of the government of Israel. Most simply don’t care and blame the victims, and the so-called Israeli “left” relies on politicians to do the job. I’m not trying to downplay the heroic resistance of the Palestinians, but it’s time for more Israelis who call themselves “leftist” to engage in active resistance against the criminal acts of the state of Israel. History is changed through the acts and action of people in the streets, not through the voting booth.

I do think that “Check-Point watch” is doing something very important. They are not only protecting Palestinians from abusive acts committed by Israeli soldiers, they are exposing the Israeli occupation for what it is, inhuman. Organizations like that and others (Beselem, ISM) are targeted by the Israeli arm forces because they expose the Israeli occupation for what it is. For the Zionist propaganda machine it’s very important to maintain the lie of “Democracy” and “human occupation”, and to hide the devastating affects on Palestinians by the state of Israel. And these organizations contradict that by their very present (I would really recommend you to see the movie “Naker Ahat Mishtay Eyni”).

Obviously, I would rather Israelis engage in civil disobedience as the “anarchist against the well” are doing, but as long as they are doing something, its fine. You see, we need to have a united-front against the racist laws and hegemony of the state of Israel. And while we are doing that, we should have debates and struggles among us what would be the best way to end the occupation, or more fundamentally capitalism. “Peace Now” for example, drives me crazy with their ridicules politics. That, however, does not mean that they are the enemy. The development of ideas under capitalism is unequal, and people will come with different ideas on how to end the occupation. It’s our responsibility to push those people towards better solutions while maintaining unity.

America today, the leading imperialist country owes trillions of dollars to foreign countries
?

"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!