Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Burleson <anvil-AT-sunspot.tiac.net> Subject: Re: M-G: Re: greetings On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Rolf Martens wrote: Just some very few lines, Bruce, in response: > >Frankly, I see little difference between the Stalinism of the Soviet > >Union from 1928 on, and your Maoism. > > Medicine didn't work! A dificult case. Like many others, here > in Sweden as well as in US. What shall I say: Please read my > "ERROR..." stuff not 10 or 20 times but 30....? > > And I see little difference > >between the economies of China and the United States, other than a > >superficial claim to communist ideology on China's part. > > For Chris' sake, the *present* China of course has nothing to > do with Mao Zedong; did't you knos that? The whole Cultural > revolution 1966-76 was in order to prevent such things as the > later restoration of capitalism, 1976/78 - wich succeeeded because > of the strenthg that the bourgeoisie still had, internationally - > from happening. OK, I'm not sure I agree but will read up on Mao before I continue in this segment of our debate. > >A Marxist is someone who adhers to the ideas of Marxism, regardless > >of their background or party affiliation, or for that matter, their > >political activity or inactivity. So a person who calls herself a > >Marxist will usually at least have some idea of what Marxism is, I > >think. > > No, no, no, no, NO! BIG mistake. In 0.01 percent of the cases, > or something, today. Rest will be mainly shit. This is basically > because the bourgeoisie today *must* camouflage itself as "leftist", > or must have very important forces that do so - also because it > takes a certain education to become a Marxist. Bullshit. If I subscribe to the ideology of Marxism, I am by necessity a Marxist. Your idea that the ruling class is pretending to be wolves in sheep's clothing is totally paranoid. I certainly don't see Bill Clinton pretending to toe the Marxist line, or even Tony Blair. Who's pretending? > There were bloody *none* "residual forms of socialism" in > SU in 1990. The 1989-91 transition was one from *fascism*, > or a sort of feudal system, to another (and also brutal) > bourgeois one. Towards the *end of the 1950s* - *at the > very latest*, there was a *bourgeois* dictatorship in > the Soviet Union. I know - a certain trend of thought denies > this. But (and I'm not blaming you all that much for falling > for it) that trend is basically *very* reactionary, and > mendacious. A piece of advice: Be *very* sceptical of those > people who're saying this. You're forgetting that "socialism" is a broad term. There are many forms of socialism. The question for Marxists today is, which form should be supported and promoted? The forms of socialism line up under two categories: socialism from above (USSR/China) and socialism from below (Cuba, Russia from 1917 until 1928). > One example: Primitive small Afghanistan was invaded by big strong > Soviet social-imperialism in 1979; for almost a decade a war > was fought there (with US imperialism providing *some* but not > that much help or "help "to the defenders). There was *no* > socialist power in the world at that time, no power that > could help the Afghan people in any consistent way. What happened? > > Despoite their modern weapons, massive air power and everything, > the social-imperialists got *licked*. A good example of that > *strength of the people' (in one country and in the world) that > you don't understand, Bruce - which is one reason you're > falling into the trap of "supporting yourself" on *gangsters* > or advising the peoples to do so - not seeing or not wanting > to see that they *are* gangsters. What trap? I never argued that Cuba should support itself on the USSR or any other power. The fact remains--which you have yet to disprove--is that establishing primary trade relations with the USSR was a move Cuba needed to make, in order that the revolution not be crushed by U.S. imperialism. I think your Maoism has the wool over your eyes on this one. > >> That propaganda negates the fact - which is often not clearly > >> visible, which is only there "under the surface" but which *is* > >> there, of the strength of the people in the world. *That* was > >> one thing the Chinese communists in Mao's time, and also one > >> small party in Germany that used to be *very* cood and which > >> I had close contact with from 1974 to 1990, always stressed. > >> A very important fact! There *was* a "third" way for Cuba! > >> I'm not saying it wasn't difficult. But it was there. > >> > > > >What, the maoist-stalinist way? Nope, again. > > > > > >> >Che did support diversification of agriculture, but that didn't > >> >happen--I think--until the 1980's or so. > >> > >> OK, it would still be a sound an necessary road to follow. > > > >It has been followed. In addition to its main crop--sugar--Cuba > >grows a wide variety of other crops as well, in particular > >tobacco. Interestingly enough, Cuba has integrated its agricultural > >system with a system of environmentally-friendly "ecological > >tourism." You'll never see that happen in a Stalinist society. > > Oh yes, that's true. I saw in one paper how that old (in fact) > big-power lackey Fidel had recently turned into a "green2, > which is a phoney, arch-reactionary line too. But more on > this some other time. Fidel is the recognized leader of the Cuban Revolution. Every revolution has its leaders; that is part of the glue which holds the revolution together. Your criticism of Fidel on the eco- tourism policy is unfounded; has it never occurred to you that perhaps the Cuban government actually CARES about the environment? Or are you so cynical that everything is mere propaganda to you? > >Cuba was--and is--a sovereign nation and had its own > >volunteer standing army. They simply shipped it to Angola and > >won. Why is it necessary to attribute that effort to the > >Soviet Union? > > To believe this is pretty much as naive as believing that > the US had *nothing to do with" the various puppet governments > in southern Vietnam in the 60s and early 70s and sent troops > there to "defend liberty". Two words: Cynical drivel. > >I'm not blaming Stalin, but StalinISM. And Khrushchev only continued > >and worsened the status quo put in place by Stalin. By the way, > >I'm still wondering why Maoism ought to be thought of as any better. > > > >Bruce Burleson > > "Stalinism" again. Probably you'd need to read that stuff I sent > not 30 but 40 times, Bruce. Or, to be more precise, a form of > information addition on many different points would be needed to > make you see how things are. I wrote "from now to eternity" in the > beginning of that "medicine" stuff, and that's about the time > perspective for (e.g.) our debate on this, eh? > > Rolf M. Well it appears that on some issues, i.e. Cuba, you and I will never agree. Bruce Burleson --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005