Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:40:49 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: Re: M-I: On the irrelevance of the Soviet Union


Zeynep wrote, on 12.12:

>What the Soviet Union was is no longer a dividing line, it was in the past.

But it *is*, very much so.

This could be seen very clearly, for instance, on the former Marxist
list the weeks before it ended. There was a "discussion" on Afghanistan.
Some people actually defended the social-imperialist aggression against
that country in 1979-89 and were very angry indded with me for
condemning it. This then showed clearly to everybody that those
persons were either extremely ignorant or else bourgeois phoneys,
adversaries of the proletariat.

It all has to do with that crucially important tactics of the
bourgeoisie in the world of camouflaging some of its forces
as "communist" and doing all it can to subvert, fool and deflect
the genuinely revolutionary forces. Also, in socialist countries,
class struggle continues and there is the possibility of a
capitalist restauration. Precisely this took place of course in
the Soviet Union and later in China.

What forces are and/or were genuinely on the side of the proletariat,
which forces are not? This is often a difficult question. One
absolutely must recognise the existence of that bourgeois camouflage
tactics. It's one of the most importand phenomena of our entire
century.

Also, Zeynep, take the "Quispe" fight in April-June (in the main)
on the old Marxism list. Don't you recognize today that you were
very naive in writing, end of April, approximately: "Now boys ans
girls, don't fight between yourselves; this only favours the
enemy", as if that very enemy did *not* send lots of agents
to subvert the revolutionary forces. Later, when "Quispe" had
been more or less completely exposed and was being attacked by
many who had been doubtful at first, and when Adolfo Olaechea
had disclosed the fact that the so-called "Marcelina Ccorimanya",
under whose name "Quispe" (= US imperialist agent W. Palomino)
used to write too, so as to pretend there were more than one
person - then you made a little fun of this too and pretended
there swas someone else posting from your address, saying
"Zeynep will be back soon".

Wasn't it so? On that point, "even" you recognized the possibility
of there being phoneys, even agents, around. The necessity of
struggle against revisionism, in other words.

And this is the context in which this question of recent history,
the qustion of the character of the Soviet Union, must be seen.
It is not only contains a crucial dividing line, that between
those who see that the once-proletarian state eventually was
subverted and taken over by the bourgeoisie. It also contains
a difficult, still not completely solved question: Precisely
when (or approximately when) *did* the bourgeoisie win out in
the Soviet Union? I don't mean to say that one should have a
black-and-white picture on this - saying that all was OK in
the SU during a certain period and that later, all became bad
at once. But there is need for more knowledge and analysis
on this.

Most certainly, the dividing line: For or against Mao Zedong's
basic analysis and criticism of modern revisionism, that's
a very important one.


>A recent anectode might illustrate what I mean. The setting is a discussion
>about political economy, a class taught by a comrade.

....

Well, certainly, sterile catch-word "analysis" by people who say
the're adherents of Mao Zedong etc doesn't help either (it seems
to me you're referring to a discussion along such lines). But the
dividing line we're talking about remains one of the most
important ones.

We have a more recent dividing line too: In the mid-'70:s,
Mao's line in China was opposed by two reactionary groups,
two reactionary tendencies, the one of Deng Xiaoping and the
one of the 4-Gang. The first-mentioned represented a deviation
of the "traditionally-capitalist" or openly-Rightist type,
the second one of the phoney"Left" one, somewhat resembling
Trotskyism. Together, and in rivalry too, these two groups
effected the overthrow of socialism in China.

The 4-Gang, when beaten in October 1976 (a victory for the
people which however the Deng group later managed to annul
and even exploit for its own purposes) was squarely condemned
by the Chinese people, who hated that group, and by the
Marxist-Leninist organizations internationally at that time.

But later the CIA, through their Avakianist instruments the
"RCP" in the USA and the "RIM" internationally, spread the
lie that the 4-Gang had been "the real revolutionaries".
This was and is in order to make propaganda for a certain
erroneous ideology with which they want to fool the
revolutionary forces and which is damaging for the proletariat.

Certain otherwise "progressive" people, including some who
seem to be honsetly desiring revolution, to this day have
been fooled by this CIA propaganda, because of their ignorance.
Since I happen to know the facts on this historical matter
and have access to many documents on it, I've written a great
deal on it, to counteract that CIA disinformation. Those who've
read what I've posted will now be able to see the facts. Some
people no doubt will continue to make propaganda for the
4-Gang anyhow, just as some continue to make propaganda for
Trotsky, for Khroushchev etc etc still today. But it will
be clearly seen, then that those people are enemies of
the proletariat.

Another dividing line, the one concerning the 4-Gang, thus.

There are so many frauds engaged in by the bourgeoisie in
our century! That's why there are so many dividing lines.

Recommending for the sheep to lie down and eat together with
the lions - as did recently on this list =C2ngelo Novo, Portugal,
and as do you seem to be doing too with this thing about the
"vanishing" of that SU dividing line - NO, that's not good.

Rolf M.



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