Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:22:07 +0000
From: PSEUDONYM-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: M-INTRO: Re: Dr Hunt's Mao



Re: Dr Hunt's Mao

The line of argument pursued by Dr Hunt below is fundamentally false
because it proceed entirely from the basis of accepting that the
Stalinist theory of 'Socialism in a Single Country' is entirely correct
or at least was the only practical way to proceed for both Stalin and
Mao.  Thus we have the dreadful moralism, 'On the one hand Stalin
and Mao did some terrible things, on the other hand they did develop the
productive forces, so the overall effect of their efforts were positive
rather than negative.  And by the way they cannot be held responsible
for the actions of some of their more enthusiastic but foolish
followers.'

The only correct way to tackle this is to assess the INTERNATIONAL
balance of class forces, in say, 1927, to understand in what way it was
unfavourable and then to elaborate a programme and tactics on HOW TO
FIGHT FOR INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM IN THESE UNFAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.
This was Trotsky's paaroach. It was nor Stalin's approach and even less
so was it Mao's afterwards.  Stalin 
abandoned hope in the world revolution (whilst masking this initially by
the ultra-left lunacy of the 'third period'). With the disastrous
experiences of the Anglo-Russian Trade Union Commission and the 'Bloc of
Four Class' in China he proceeded to lash-up yet more and more
opportunist deals which GUARANTEED the defeats of the German working
class in 1933 and CONSCIOUSLY WORKED FOR THE DEFEAT OF THE SOCIALIST
REVOLUTION IN SPAIN. Mao himself admits 'Stalin made mistakes in Spain'. 

The only way to defend the gains of 1917 - and China post 1949/51 was
indirectly a gain of 1917 - was the success of a revolution in a major
technologically
advanced metropolitan country that could supply the material means to
develop the productive forces in the USSR and China. So Lenin famously
proclaimed that he would sacrifice the Russian Revolution for the German
Revolution. No hint of that profoundly internationalist understanding of
the nature of socialism ever emerged from Mao of Stalin after the early
30s. Only the Left Opposition and Trotskyists subsequently have fought
for this understanding.

As Indonesia plunges into its economic and environmentalist chaos (they
are BOTH primarily the product imperialist exploitation despite Rolf's
anti-environmentalist policies) we might remember that it was Mao who
gave that disastrous popular frontist police to the Indonesian CP - the
very line that he correctly ignored when Stalin tried to force him to
capitulate to Chiang (he valued his head after Shanghai 1927). So Mao
could make some empirically correct manoeuvres, like Stalin he did
defend the gains of nationalised property as the source of the
bureaucracy's privileges but in the sphere of international socialist
policies they were on  the side of profound conservatism, taking the
wrong side on innumerable conflicts for narrow national advantage
(Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. for China, the failure to veto the UN's war
in Korea in the early 50s for the USSR etc. etc.)

Whenever the working class rose in revolution the Stalinists, of the
Stalin or the Mao variety, were on the other side, or if forced by the
logic of events to fight a civil war ewither:

1. as in Spain, determined to re-establish the rule of the  bourgeoisie
over the workers so no socialist revolution would triumph or
2. Determined to prevent a socialist revolution by taking power at the
head of a peasants army - China, Vietnam, Cuba - and now look at the
peofoundly anti-working class, anti-trade union and anti-women Sendero
Luninoso Maoists in Peru or
3. Simply overturn property relations once the invading 'Red Army' had
assumed state power having workers' uprigings were suppressed -
remember the Warsaw uprising).

So, Dr Hunt, it really is not the 'lesser of two evils' for the working
class between Stalinism and imperialism, just as it is not the 'lesser
of two evils' between the trade union bureaucracy and the bosses in a
serious strike struggle, but a question of how genuine revolutionary
forces are to form united fronts (yes with the Stalinists on occasions -
to defend nationalised property relations, to defend the trade unions
etc. against the class enemy) and how they are to fight within these for
the revolutionary policies that will expose the false leaders and win
the struggle and the revolution.  
  
Snip:

Dr Hunt:

>While a lot in China does not reflect gloriously on the socialist
cause, it
>is still the case that the Western media have exploited the
bureaucratic
>stumbles and the oppression to discredit socialism. What one reads in
the
>media has to be taken with a grain of salt and considered for its
>ideological significance rather than as fact.
>
>The same applies to a figure like Stalin, who was responsible for much
more
>consciously murderous policies than Mao. Alongside the murderous
repression
>of Stalin's campaign against "enemies of the people," there are the
>consequences of collectivisation with famine etc. It is clear that
Stalin
>did not consciously intend to impose famine, and if he is to be held
>accountable for the deaths which resulted from collectivisation from
above,
>then he should also be credited for the gains in life expectancy which
>flowed from improvements to health etc. for the majority in the former
USSR,
>gains which are now being reversed. And, if Stalin should be held
>accountable for the causalities resulting from his desperate insistence
>that the Nazis not be provoked, he should also be given credit for
>organizing the defence of Moscow etc.
>
>Dr Ian Hunt,
>Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy,
>Philosophy Dept,
>Flinders University of SA,
>Humanities Building,
>Bedford Park, SA, 5042,
>Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2556
>

Gerry Downing



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