Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:33:59 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: When did the Cold War end? In 1964, *not* in 1989!


When did the Cold War end? In 1964, *not* in 1989!
[Posted: 07.12.96]

In Barry Crawford's article on Rwanda (brought by Ang on
04.12), which I've posted some comments on, I also noticed 
again the use of that expression "the end of the Cold War", 
as meaning, the period of 1989-91 approximately, a sense in 
which this expression has been used by many other writers too. 

This term in fact is very confusing, since it doesn't distinguish 
between imperialism's opposition to that actual socialist camp 
which existed since the late 1940:s and for a decade or so after 
that, on the one hand, and the opposition both by the peoples and 
by some "traditional" imperialists to the later, social-imperialist, 
Soviet Union, on the other. 

The actual "Cold War" ended approximately in 1964, *not* 25 years 
later. Calling the state of inter-imperialist rivalry that later 
existed between the both superpowers by that same name, such as do 
many openly-bourgeois forces, serves completely to confuse the 
issue of what was actually going on during the different periods. 

It's basically the same confusion that's created by pretending 
that the social-imperialist Soviet Union was "socialist", or 
"communist", or by saying, as the Trotskyists are so fond of, 
that the Soviet Union was "Stalinist" - thus designating by the 
same term those very different entities the Soviet Union of the 
1930:s and that same state from the 1960:s on, although its 
class character had then radically changed.

If you're to analyse, with any chance of success, events today
and recent history, it's absolutely necessary that you see
through the confusing use of these terms.

If the term "Cold War" is to be used at all for something that
existed between, approximately, the early 1960:s and the
late 1980:s / early 1990:s, it should at least be modified
into reading "Cold War II", in a manner similar to the
well-known terminology of "World War I" and "World War II".
The wars designated by these two latter terms likewise were 
quite different from each other as to their basic character: 

"WW I" was what is also called "an imperialist war", in the 
sense of "inter-imperialist war". It was a war between two 
groups of imperialist powers over the control of colonies. 

"WW II" was in essence an anti-fascist war, a *just* war not 
only on the part of the then still socialist Soviet Union (in 
which there were already some quite serious bourgeois/nationalist
deformations) and the peoples occupied by the Nazis and their 
allies, but also on the part of those of course imperialist
states the USA, Great Britain etc, whose imperialist
interests did play a role in that war in some respects and 
at certain points of time, which however didn't change the
basically just, anti-fascist, character of that war.

That very reactionary, in reality bourgeois, ideology, 
Trotskyism, even holds - as far as I understand; there may
be some Trotskyites who don't have this standpoint - that
the war effort of the USA and Great Britain in "WW II" was
*unjust* and should have been opposed - I've read that at
least some Trotskyites did oppose it too - while *only* those
of the Soviet Union were just. The same the Trotskyites
presumably apply to the resistance movements in Nazi-
occupied Europe  - the anti-fascist struggle of those
people in Norway, for instance, who wanted the King back
was condemned by one Trotskyite writer, Bob Malecki,
some weeks ago; only the ones who said they were fighting 
for communism were in the right, according to him, and 
presumably according to other Trotskyites too. An
"all-or-nothing" standpoint which of course is completely
opposed to Marxism and in fact favours the very worst of
the reactionaries.

And a similar standpoint is it to speak about the demise
of that former bastion of reaction, Soviet social-imperialism,
as "the end of the Cold War", not distinguishing it from that
shift - the enforced giving up of their most reactionary 
standpoint and, at the same time, their allying with the newly 
emerging bourgeois big power, the Soviet Union - which the 
US imperialists and others undertook in the early 1960:s.

Another matter is the fact that in the earlier, socialist,
Soviet Union too there *were* deformations, unjust
persecutions of people who in fact were not reactionaries
and an emerging nationalism. This whole epoch in history
needs to be investigated further. Some people even have
maintained that the Soviet Union turned social-imperialist
as early as in the 1930:s. I disagree with this, although I
hold that *some* facts point in this direction. 

But if you're to think and speak of "the Cold War ending
in 1989-91", then at least you must call it "Cold War II".

For the criticism and analysis of the Soviet Union as by
then a bourgeois, and no more a socialist, state, one
good reference is to what has later become known as
"the Grand Polemics" (between the Communist Party of
China and the then in reality bourgeois party in power in
the Soviet Union) in 1963-64. The CPC published its
own articles, together with the Soviet replies, and at least
one of them is available on the Net - see the Marx-Engels
archives or the Chinabulletin site - the well-known
"Proposal" of 1963.

Rolf M.





     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---