HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
At 04:26 2001-12-14 +0000, Bill Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >I meant above all the "houses" of "traditional" capitalism
> >and imperialism, on the one hand, and revisionism, as
> >represented not least by the social-imperialist Soviet
> >Union and its adherents from the 60s on.
>
> And the two are as bad as each other, then?
>
> Plaguingly,
>
> Bill.
Yes. During one period in the mid-70s, social-imperialism
was "worse", or at least was the most dangerous (direct)
source of war, planning an aggression against West
Europe and in fact putting everything on that "card" for
its own "survival" too. The Marxists at the time (Mao
Zedong in China and the very small genuine forces
in Europe) in fact had to concentrate on these aims
of social-imperialism even more than on what the US
imperialists were - directly - doing.
The reason the Soviet Union was so strong then, or
appeared to be so, was that the US imperialists, the
leading faction among them, absolutely needed that
arch-reactionary power as a counterweight against
the then existing revolutionary China and revolutionary
tendencies also elsewhere, so that they in fact
connived, in part at least, at the aggressive plans
of the Soviet revisionists.
After the overthrow of socialism in China, in 1976/78,
the US imperialists no longer had this "need", so,
ironically, the acute war danger decreased.
As it turned out clearly later, US imperialism was
the one who was directing things, more or less,
from behind the stage. That power *was* the more
"solid" one, so to speak. Social-imperialism and
its and adherents certainly were nasty, no less
openly nasty than US imperialism and *its*
open adherents, but that latter enemy of the
people was the stronger, in the long run.
"A plague on both your houses!", anyway, very
much applied then, and it equally much applies now.
As one small example/"proof" of this, read again
those howlings "ban-ban-ban!" against me and
my small (repeated) exposure of social-imperialism
earlier dealings in Afghanistan, by Murraybullah
("mart"), Barrybullah and (a little "milder") by
Richiebullah (Roper) too, on this list a couple
of days ago. *Very* touchy, and pretty nasty,
in their intents, weren't they? Imagine such
people being of control of a state, say. They'd
outdo Ashcroft and his (closest) friends any day,
as to suppression of the (actual) Left and of the
people.
Rolf M.
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
