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.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005