Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 01:52:16 +0200 (MET DST) To: marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: Re: M-G: Afghan, Trots, Mao, Rob wrote, on 25.05: >Rolf, I just read one of your posts, which refered to the imperialist >war of the Soviet Union vs. the people of Afghan. You seem to look at >it very one dimensionally. The uprising in Afghanistan was put up , >backed, armed and supplied by the U.S. No. Though there was a certain US influence too, the main thing about the war was the social-imperialist aggression. > The U.S was prepared to subject >the people of Afghanistan to a horrible repressive fundamentalist >regime. The Soviet Union wanted to prevent such a thing. By no means! The Soviet social-imperialists wanted to subjugate the Afghan people. The idiocy about "anti-fundamentalism" was just a pretext, as the conversation among Soviet leaders which was pat of my posting last autumn on that war clearly shows. Trotskyite ideology is basically an *asshole-licking* ideology. It liscks the assholes *both* of (former) Soviet social- imperialism *and* today of US imperialism, above all. There are several recent examples of this. 1) The US imperialists are waging *war* internationally against the very best energy source and an extremely valuable resource to mankind, nuclear energy. What forces are they using as their slimy muppets and ventroliquist dummies in this? The Trots. For instance: Bob M., Hugh R., and also such people as Doug Left Biz Obs and Hans Psycho III Ehrbar, not to speak of that slimy Trot cop Chris B. >Now although >the former SU acted I guess out of imperialism, we defend their actions Yes. That's because you're muppets of imperialism. Which is point 2). 3) The Trots that, manipulated by the US imperialists, perpetrated the hostage action in Lima, Peru, for certain in fact very reactionary reasons. Please see earlier discussion on this list. 4) The Trots in reality supported Mobutu in Congo, refusing to support the forces that overthrew him, the AFDL under Kabila - this all under the silly pretence that "there was no difference between the two" or even that "the AFDL was in the pocket of US imperialism" - turning things upside-down, since it's *the Trots* that are this. 5) Pretending that events in Albania are some sort of "proletarian revolution" - which is making a mockery out of every real such revolution. This idiocy you're repeating below too. Even a person who calls himself a "Trot" and who - despite this, I on my part would say - namely, Vladimir B., has, much to his credit, strongly oppposed this idiocy and has writtn that is shows that "there's something rotten in the house of Trotskyism." there is, too. 6) Your very asshole-licking and very ridiculous statement below about Mao Zedong's somehow having been "kinky" on sex. In fact, the opposite was the case. You Trots in fact are all - as are your spriritual masters the rotten bourgeoisie - somehow IDEOLOGICAL FAGGOTS. In this respect, I'd like to exclude Bob M. He at least has certain good points on that hex etc matters, although in the main, he's just as brainwashed as yourself, Rob. On that contradictory term "Stalinism", I've already written before. I probably shall have to prepare a standard posting for use every time that patently-stupid patently-bourgeois term is employed by you pro-social-imperialist and pro- US-imperialist people. Just this small thing again: You did mention Afghanistan. Now who invaded and made an aggression against that country? Wasn't it Brezhnev, who along with his predecessor Chrushchev precisely *attacked* Stalin? And who *defended* the right of the Afghan people to independence and *denounced* that social-imperialist aggression? Wasn't it precisely we adherents of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong - i.e., precisely the people that you and your ilk are trying to vilify as "Stalinists". Your "two legs" happen to stand 10 miles apart from each other, Rob. Your Trot bourgeois ideology is caught up in an irreconciliable contradiction, which shows up very very clearly precisely on this question. Rolf M. >because, although Stalinism is horrilble, we think that the >fundamentalist actions towards woman and so forth are even worse. We >have to support what the Afghan people had achieved. We didn't want to >see what they had created destroyed, and the women repressed. So, >although acknowledging the imperialism, we had to support the war for >the defense of the rights of equality in Afghanistan. > I don't understand why you don't think the Albania revolution is a >proletarian revolution. What do you call it when WORKERS, SOLDIERS, and >YOUTH stand up for the creation of a socialist society, in direct >struggle with the ruling class and capital? The Albania revolution >should be looked at as inspiration for us all! > I don't really know why, but there is a lot of Trotsky bashing that >goes on, a lot. It's on this mailing list, Bob and I were bashed on >another project, and I'm not sure why. We don't succumb to irrational >bashing and name calling, and before I thought it was petty and stupid >to name call and so on, but I've decided to defend Trotsky and >Trotskyism with all my might!!!! I know there are different beleifs, >but us Trots always seem to get the most, the rudest, and the worst >opposition/insults/threats. > I've been interested in Marxism for some time, well, about a year and >some, I'm only 18! but I came to Trotskyism on my accord, because it >makes sense, and I think it was/is the natural progression for >Leninism. "For us Trotsky is Lenin" said James Cannon, there were no >differences between the two, well except for the TU debate, but >fundamentally they were unified. I think if Lenin had lived, he would >have done and said the same things as Trotsky. Maoism to me serves no >practical purpose, and I don't think is very *marxist* so to speak. The >violence and oppositionism I see in Maoism, isn't very productive >(although irritating you guys come up with the best cut downs- always >good for a laugh)! > >P.S.- I was just out for a coffee with a friend and he was talking about >a book he had read on great people in history and their strange sexual >habits, and Mao was mentioned as one of the *kinky* and strangest ones. >Has anyone else heard this? I thought it was funny, and quite >interesting. >P.S.S- I'm curious about James Cannon, I know he eventually turned to >reformism, but when and how? I have Socialism on Trial(very good book), >but I've never seen any other books by him or on him (although I know >there are a few). Anyone care to discuss Cannon and his relation to >American Trotskyism? > > >Comradely > >Rob > > > --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005