"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!