Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 03:26:05 +0200 (MET DST)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: Re: greetings


Hello Bruce - very quickly again:
>
>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.  

Good!
>
>
>> >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. 

"Bullshit", bullshit!

>If I subscribe to the ideology of Marxism, I am by
>necessity a Marxist. 

No! Certain qualifications are needed. One must have seen
through things at least approximately - today understand
the basic correctness of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong
Thought (they're one unity today) and have a line that
really, approximately at least, *favours' the vast majority
of people. Sometimes it's difficult to say, who should
really be considered a Marxist and who should not. Everybody
is making mistakes, for instance. But one who - such as you -
havent't seen through the charcter that the Soviet Union had,
from at least the early 60s on - I would say does not qualify
as a Marxist. The facts of that case are so clear. The question
too (still) is so important.

>Your idea that the ruling class is pretending to
>be wolves in sheep's clothing is totally paranoid. 

Another reason, Bruce, why I wouldn't call you a Marxist.
This thing since many decades is not "big" but B I G,
in the world. One of the most important facts of all in
today's world. 

>I certainly don't
>see Bill Clinton pretending to toe the Marxist line, or even Tony
>Blair.  Who's pretending?

Not Clinton in person. But in Blair's case, even such a
"big-time" person, he actually *says* he's a "SOCIALIST"(!),
doesn't he? Though not a "Marxist".

And in your own, "Militant" etc circles - whose whole
ideology *is* a kind of bourgeois ideology, in reality,
there are lots of sincere people who want to do good
things for the majority of people, only they're prisoners,
in a way, of that ideology and of the actually *insincere*
people they're being led by.

The bourgeoisie has a whole series of "defence perimeters"
like that.

Not least - one of the "last perimeters" or "outermost" -
there's the so-called "RCP" of the USA and the "International"
(totally phony!) which it leads (having succeded in tricking
the PCP in Peru - which IMO is genuine but has grave faults)
into signing its basic phony "RIM Declaration", together
with some 15 small phony organizations in various countries.

They're "the big Maoists", they say!

The enemies of the people are getting smarter and smarter,
they have to be, and using better and better camouflage,
they absolutely have to, since they,re such a small
proportion of all people and their system so obviously
very bad and getting worse. And they're fooling considerable
numbers of sincere people too of course. So there are
always big running struggles going on in connection with
the efforts of the sincere people at connecting to each other
and at detecting where there *are* other sincere forces on
this or that leveland how to unite etc, and the efforts at
seeing through which forces are phonys and which are not.

For more than a year, for instance, I was in quite close
connection with and in alliance on some important questions
with the Detroit Peru Support Committee, Detroit, USA,
and its leader, Jay Miles. He and I dind't agree on all 
questions but I appreciated very much having such an ally
- a 60% one, or 80% or whatever, it seemed - in the USA,
Mao adherents were and are scarce. It just recently turned
out - ther were some signs even before - that Jay was basically
*not* an honest person, *not* on the side of the great majority
- something that demands that you tell the truth, as well
as you know it. In the course of a certain struggle, where
Jay had long been supporting the wrong side (as he could
*see*), since lats March or so, I had to counterattack him 
and tell all that Jay was not to be trusted. That was
painful too. But necessary.


>> 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?


NO. There are *not* many forms for socialism. Of course there
will be variations because of history and geography. *But*
the criterion is: IS THE PROLETARIAT ACTUALLY IN POWER, OR
IS THE BORGEOISIE IN POWER, in the state? Is there a
dictatorship of the proletariat or one by the bourgeiosie?

Sometimes that's very difficult to see.

In the case of China, it's not so hard to see the facts today
- at least for me, and why? Because there was that very good
party in Germany, the Ne, which analysed these things well.
And btw, others agree on the matter too: The burgeiosie in
China took over, in the time between late 1976 and  late
1978 approximately.

The Soviet Union then? In fact, it's still a damned difficult
case!

But at least since the early 1960s, the bourgeoisie has benn
in power there.


>The forms of socialism line up under two categories: socialism
>from above (USSR/China) and socialism from below  (Cuba,
>Russia from 1917 until 1928).

OK, I see you put the end of socialism "from below?" in SU as having
occurred in 1928. But there *are* no other forms of socialism that
that "from below". You probably mean, that Stalin ruled, in a way
on behalf of the proletariat. He *was* very powerful. But then,
you would have to say too. When, in that case, did Stalin cease
to rule on behalf of the proletariat and start to rule on
behalf of the bourgeoisie?

This queston is difficult for me too. The Chinese communists
said in 1963 approximately: Stalin's rule, 70% positive, 30%
negative. So far, I have no better answer. I would say that
the SU was still socialist in the early 1950s.
>
>
>> 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.

Let's just agree to disagree here, then, for the time being.
I'm not going to put in much time on this subject right now
since I think there are more pressing ones. But I know that
quite a lot of people, not least in the USA, are of your
opinion here. Perhaps later, I could try to present my case
more fully on this question.

................
>Well it appears that on some issues, i.e. Cuba, you and I will
>never agree.  
>
>Bruce Burleson

That's quite possible, Bruce. But if that is so, and remains
so after perhaps the matter has been thrashed out in details
etc - which it by far hasn't, between us now - then at least
one of us two must be insincere. For *all* questions are
knowable. There *is* the truth about them somewhare.

Rolf M. 



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