File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1996/96-12-18.142, message 21


Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:49:53 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: MG: re Sectarian Feuding


Ben Pedersen wrote, on 13.12:

>Joao Paulo Monteiro's remarks do not represent the isolated ramblings of a
>'revisionist' as some are apparently ready to brand them. I for one have
>long been disheartened by the continual factionalism of the revolutionary
>Left.

But, one more time, the "revolutionary Left", s desrcibed by the
openly-bourgeois media and by the revisionists, consists of parts
which are very much opposed to each other. There are groupings
and tendencies which in reality represent ultra-reaction.

How about the crimes of the Soviet social-imperialists of yesterday?
Their aggression against Afghanistan, for instance - just to take
one very obvious thing. Aren't there people who say they're
"Marxists", yet today say this aggression was "a good thing"?

How about the crimes of the 4-Gang in China in the mid-'70:s?
How about those of the Deng Xiaping clique now in power in that
country? Aren't there people who say they're  "Marxists", yet
support the actions of one of those groups? Ignorance may be the
cause in certain instance. But the facts are clear and can be
shown to all. Those who, after having gotten information on
these points, still applaud the revisionists, can they in
any way be trusted to support the interests of the workers and
the oppressed peoples?

Lenin pointed out: The struggle against imperialism is a fraud,
if it's not integrally coupled to a struggle against revisionism.
This still holds today.

>I would prefer to see a strong coalition of the revolutionary Left make
>some real gains in the war with Capital rather than to continually expend
>itself upon endless in-fighting.

The fight against Khrushchev and Brezhnev, against the 4-Gang and
Deng Xiaoping, against the supporters of these enemies of the
workers, would you call that "in-fighting"? In the beginning, when
the lines of demarcation wrere not so clear, it might be called
that. And it was very necessary. "Capital" *disguises itself*
and tries to appear in under the mask of "proletarian revolution",
that's the reason why this "in-fighting" is necesaary.

Rolf M.





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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005