File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1996/96-10-19.135, message 78


Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 05:14:44 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: Marxism and the Third World


Bob Malecki wrote, in reply to Richard P.:


>So stop the poor third worldist shit Richard. Millions of workers in the 
>west died in this historical struggle and both Soviet and Cuban workers died 
>and suffered in the thousands helping Africans. 

That's precisely what they did *not*. The Soviet Union tried - using
own troops to a lesser extent and those of its underling Cuba much
more - to *enslave* Africa, to get its own foot in there instead of 
that of US imperialism (above all), in the '70:s etc. If one is to
understand the world at all, it's absolutely necessary to see the 
difference between socialim, on the one hand, and social-imperialism,
on the other.

There recently was a "discussion" on "M1" about the aggression
by Soviet social-imperialism against Afghanistan , also a part
of the third world, 1979-1989. Some people openly quoted with
approval someone's earlier saying "if there was ever a country that
deserved to be raped, it was Afghanistan" (!!). Others pretended
to believe that the social-imperialists, who killed 1.5 million
people there, drove away as refugees some 5-6 million, destroyed
7000 villages and littered the country with something between
10 million and 60 million mines (which it will take decades to
get rid of) were - listen to this! - "exerting a civlizing
influence" on that country! Against me, who condemned the
aggression, they used some pretty foul language.

How can this be? It has to do with what Richard pointed to,
a certain type of "Marxists" in reality being *defenders
of imperialism (including social-imperialism)* and not only
after getting a little more of imperialism's spoils by
actually, above all, very interested in *maintaining* the system
of exploitation and thus above all *attacking* and *trying to
suppress* the real Marxists.

>The whole history of 
>imperialism and class struggle is filled with horror both in the first, 
>second and third worlds. 

So it is. But I don't know what *Bob M*. means by "the second world".
Mao Zedong, who really was supporting the liberation movements
of the third world, used the term as meaning Europe, Japan,
Canada and some other countries in an intermidary position between
the then superpowers (1974 etc) and the third world.

Even if people's intentions are good, as I believe Bob's to some
part at least are, they're not much use if they hang on to various
Trotskyite/revisionist misconceptions and prejudices. They then even
in the main are *helping* reaction.

Brezhnev and company as big friends of the Africans?? 

It's amazing how some people manage to fool themselves completely -
or, to be more exact, it's difficult, when seeing such preposterous
"theories" (and yes, quite a few people on the M1 list at least
would have replied "yes" to the above question!) to make out where 
complete ignorance ends and malicious intents begin.

Rolg M.



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005