From: khalid.ali@utoronto.ca
To: John Tennyson Lee Franz <lee@faces.ula.ve>
Subject: Re: Socialism Or Barbarism, Patria o Muerte.

Dear Franz,

Sorry it was very difficult to head back on campus to respond to you with the latest. I did not see any of the editors. Three were in the carcel (jail) during the weekend for attempting to break into an abandoned property as a protest against homelessness. They tried to 'take' the building commando style with some homeless folks, but found the cops waiting, just to say "hello, you are under arrest!"

Your comments on Socialism Or Barbarism are timely, especially at this crucial bankrupt moment of the 'left'. Quite frankly, confusion reins to the level of "rumour mongering", as to just what the "left" sees of itself, in terms of its "role" in the system. Let us keep for the sake of argument your timely observation from the Communist Manifesto, that if the proletariat does not fulfil its historic role, both, proletariat and bourgeoisie, will fall into into barbarism.

Here are some questions I would like you to comment on:
 

How do you perceive their "historic role" within the context of today's socio-economic realities (globalization, cut-backs, down sizing, layoffs, unemployment, the destruction of the 'Welfare State', laissez faire ("hands off the market!") versus "hands off the State!").

Is this "historic role" that Marx speaks of, still valid in today's conditions?

Concerning the historic role of the proletariat, is it still valid, considering the centuries of political, socio-economic, ideological and religious indoctrination, that has fogged and clouded the brains of quite a majority?

Do they still have a "valid" "role" to play?

Or are they all heading for an eternal abyss of chaos and 'barbarism'?

Or is this just the beginning process of barbarism, if it is, is there a role for anyone; the individual; the proletariat or the left?

Should I be concerned anymore, considering the conclusions that we reached during our past conversations?
 

I ask these questions for a number of reasons. At last night's
meeting with the "new left", I argued, that it is the proletariat that will have to decide if it wants unions to be what they are, i.e. unions, political parties, particularly the social democrats to be exactly what they are -in form and content social democrats-, or if they want a so-called radical alternative. I made this point, because one of these "left" guys blamed the unions and social democrats for failing to provide leadership and a radical alternative in response to the present ultra-right forces.

I argued, that they can only be what "they are", because it is what they want themselves to be. Furthermore I stated that I was not sure, if they, the "left", had any historic role to play. I also asked them to stop the scapegoating "insults" and be a little narcissistic and examine themselves first, before trading barbs at unions and social democrats.

I did get into trouble. I was told, that I did not understand, that
for centuries, man has been indoctrinated and fooled, and that my historic role was to educate and conscientize in order to have change- and basta con my elitist's attitude! I responded, that "living" is a daily praxis, and if it is indeed true that the proletariat is under assault from capitalism, I expect a change or at least a signal of change from them, too.

However, whenever there are rallies or protests (for the few that turn out) I see no anger nor aggression, all that I hear about is to respect "law and order" and to be civil, 'we' don't want a bad name or bad publicity ..... etc. The point is -the blame game-, that the cut-backs and down sizing are "too deep" and "painful", and 'we' have to help the proletarians to do "something." So, in the context of the above, I ask the aforementioned questions.

Other than that, I am busy looking for a job and yes I am fed up with 'the 'Left. By the way, I do not loose sleep over them. Good night and greetings to you both.

Khalid
 

From: khalid.ali@utoronto.ca
X-Sender: khalid.ali@log3
To: John Tennyson Lee Franz <lee@faces.ula.ve>
Subject: Re: Playing Black & White on my Piano

My dearest Franz,

While reading the above message your Pepper Pot/Blood Brother message arrived. Permit me to respond to the above first.

I read your response to some of the questions I posed to you. I
can see exactly where you are heading in terms of the answer. I agree with your point, and I am and have been seriously considering a number of questions with regards to "the Left" and their interpretation of the concept "Revolution".

I begin with the following controversial comment. At the time of
writing their works, Marx and Engels thought, that they were living in an era of developed capitalism, when in fact capitalism had not developed to "that an extent", and industries were using steam power, which, by all means, at that time, was significant but not by today's comparison. Therefore, there are some problems with Marx's analysis.

He felt, that the proletarians, that is, mainly the industrial workers, would rebel from their conditions of misery and take over the factories. However, the  worker's chosen weapon of conflict was to strike and to negotiate settlements for better wages and conditions. This pattern continues unabated hasta hoy. What does this tell us about the proletarians? - They have always proven to be a sell-out. Perhaps the real proletarians were the lumpen , who were and have been used as the tools of rebellion, but were conceived as too stupid and crazy, thus incapable of doing anything substantial to help themselves.

You are therefore correct to say, that it was the bourgeoisie that coined the term "revolution" - it was them, who promoted the idea, because at that time they tended to be "economically independent", yet needed the proletarians to help them. It
was the bourgeois intellectuals with a penchant for the patria or
nationalism, that forced the concept "revolution" into reality, to satisfy their own needs. Simply put, "the workers" (unfortunately) wants better pay, job security and better conditions of work, otherwise they couldn't care less. They are always prepared to negotiate. So, the misery continues and the notion of private property remains. Thus we have the minority, the bourgeoisie, ruling, even though the proletarians are in the majority.

Again, "the Left" in North America is like a wounded animal, that needs some time off to lick its "wounds". After the fall of the
Eastern Block, they found themselves boxed in; firstly, they came
out defensively condemning Stalin and others, secondly, they focused their wrath on Third World "intellectual" revolutionaries (e.g. Che), whom they blame for "intellectualizing" revolution. Now, for the first time in a generation, the workers of the "First World" are facing the "music", that We in the "Third World" have been facing all our lives; now they are coming out of their peep holes all excited, that a revolution could occur soon. I tell them: Not in my life time!

Never mind, basta por hoy. I am anxiously awaiting your response tomorrow.

Goodnight, sleep well. Love from Khalid.

(CONTINUED)