- Generally speaking, it would be better not to destroy any monuments, especially those which have artistic or historical significance. Such actions are often burdened by the risk of vandalism, the irretrievable destruction of cultural and historical values and the discordance among the broad masses of the people. However, it should be understood that old cultural values are not a sacred cow, especially if it is not about highly artistic works or total destruction; there are more important things in the world. Certainly, we are still in solidarity with the struggles against the neo-fascist movement, including the alt-right, waging in the United States, but we believe that such struggles should not be subordinated to the interests of the “democratic” faction of the imperialist bourgeoisie, which seeks to draw them into an acceptable framework.
It was doubtful at least whether the attacks on the monuments carried out by Communists 1, leftists and other anti-racist radicals in the United States were reasonable at the present time and in the present situation. It is remarkable that during the protests there are attacks on the old and very old symbols of colonialism and these attacks had meet friendly attention of a significant part of the bourgeois authorities and the mass-media. So they are committed just within the framework of some imperialist consensus. However, in our opinion, a much greater threat to world peace presently is, figuratively speaking, rallying around the Three Soldiers 2, rather than around the statues of Columbus or General Lee. It should be clearly understood that the proletariat and the peoples of the world do not care whether a pilot of the NATO bomber has black or white skin and they have no reasonable grounds to lament if transgender people, for example, are not be allowed to this military service. The main enemy in the US are not the South-fans and historical reenactors, but the US Army, Congress and Wall Street, whether they stand on racist positions or not.
Communists in no case should fundamentally reject any amateur violence of the masses, in any time and situation. The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat requires the highest consciousness and organization, but it always occurs under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in extremely constrained circumstances. At the same time, a new organization can not be freely prepared in full. Hence, the proletarian revolution can not in any way exclude a significant spree of spontaneity, an uncontrolled initiative from below. Moreover this is a necessary condition for its making and saving. If a revolution is restrained and waiting for the absolutely complete preparation of its organized forces to the quality of a new state machine, it will most likely be inevitably crushed long before this and suppressed by the ruling exploiting classes. To say the opposite would mean to take the stand of so-called “peaceful transition” and “structural reforms”, rejecting revolutionary communism in favor of social-democratic opportunism. Such political line eventually leads to the path of revisionist degeneration.
Amateur violence, on the one hand, should be considered fundamentally acceptable, on the other hand it should not be treated in the same manner. It is progressive or reactionary, depending on the driving forces, social circumstances and the historical moment.