CB: >>> With nuclear weapons , all human life is threatened. Nuclear war would mean the common ruin of the contending classes. Averting nuclear war takes priority, in Marxist logic, over even class struggle, to the extent that class struggle is so sharp as to threaten nuclear holocaust. The main front of the class struggle during the existence of the Soviet Union, was the "Cold" War.<<<
MP: Mr. Lawyer . . . Charles . . . listen to what you write: 1). The main front of the class struggle during the existence of the Soviet Union, was the "Cold" War. This makes no sense. The Constitution of the state that was the Soviet Union was ratified Jaurary 31, 1924 . . . Mr. Lawyer, just days before Lenin died. On December 21, 1991 eleven republics of the Soviet Union issued a statement at Alma-Ata. The statement read: "With the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the USSR ceases to exist." On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev addressed his audience by television and resigned as President of the no longer existing USSR. It is true that many communists, bourgeois statements and students of history date the emergence of the Soviet Union from October 1917. Thus one could be accurate and speak of Soviet Power lasting seventy-four years. What was the Cold War? The Cold War was the geopolitical, ideological, and economic struggle that emerged after World War II - (after World War 2) between the Soviet Union and the United States. "The main front of the class struggle" from the standpoint of the Soviet Union, was not the Cold War in say 1936. "The main front of the class struggle" from the standpoint of the Soviet Union, was not the Cold War in say 1928. "The main front of the class struggle" from the standpoint of the Soviet Union, was not the Cold War during the period of the hot war against German led European fascism. The Cold War as a form of economic, political and military confrontation between Soviet Power and American imperialism that arose in the post WW II years. >>>CB: The main front of the class struggle during the existence of the Soviet Union, was the "Cold" War.<< Do you mean the main the class struggle in every theater on earth? Here the word theater means, as the social struggle was fought out in the various states structures defining political boundaries of states. Listen to your bourgeois logic Mr. Lawyer. >>>CB: Averting nuclear war takes priority, in Marxist logic, over even class struggle, to the extent that class struggle is so sharp as to threaten nuclear holocaust.<<< Here our lawyers Charles shed his petty bourgeois orientation and appears as an out right apologist for imperialism. War has subjective dimensions but is not a purely subjective affair. One could not have learnt Marxism or inherited the mantle of Lenin and come up with such a stupid proposition as that advanced by the Lawyer Charles. War is driven forward on the basis of the contradictions internal to the bourgeois mode of production. Not only does the historical record prove that the imperialist bourgeoisie fights the proletariat and the national liberation forces of the previous era, but bourgeois states also fall upon one another and go to war with each other over markets and sphere of influence. War is the inevitable outcome of the productive (production) relations of the bourgeois mode of production. These social relations of production, most certainly are bound up and express property relations, class relations but not in a subjective sense. Capitalist states must hurl themselves upon one another in seeking outlets - markets, for their products and securing resources and energy requirements for their respective states and this is not a subjective question of the temperament of one capitalist or another. The form of utilization and expressions of expansion of the productive forces of the bourgeois mode of production also takes the form of production of arms and military implements for profit. Averting nuclear war cannot be a priority for any section of Marxism because this poses the issue of war entirely incorrect. It was in fact the degenerate Khrushchev and later Gorbachev that proposed this line of march as the general line of the world communist movement. Peace at all cost was their slogan. The bourgeois communists cried to the high heaven about the possibility of the destruction of contending classes and the earth itself if we did not bow down to the imperial masters. "Don't let the class struggle get so sharp that the bourgeoisie use nuclear weapons" is the logic of a fool. It is my understanding that our imperialist dropped atomic bombs on Japan. It is my understanding that at this very moment depleted uranium shells are being used against the masses in Iraq. Listen to our Lawyer - in the image of Lenin, once again to understand how removed from reality he is: >>>Averting nuclear war takes priority, in Marxist logic, over even class struggle, to the extent that class struggle is so sharp as to threaten nuclear holocaust. The main front of the class struggle during the existence of the Soviet Union, was the "Cold" War. <<<< In other words we are to sell our mothers and prostitute our daughters because imperialism threatens to destroy the world. The use of nuclear weapons is not contingent or based on the degree of sharpness of "the class struggle" between worker and capitalist at all. Look at Iraq and consider what happened as Hiroshima. The main front of struggle during the seventy-four year existence of the Soviet Union was not the Cold War. Our lawyer Charles lives in the theater of the abstract and proceeds from ideological concepts in his head rather than examining commonly understood world history. Charles reminds me of a slave crying over the burning down of Atlanta. >>>CB: So, I think Gorbachev had the better Marxist-materialist analysis at the level of universal human values. At this level, Marxism is "one" with "general humanitarian" values.<<< My entire ideological struggle with Charles has always been his mouthing of the most contemptible garbage of the CPUSA as it slavishly clung to whoever was the ruling group of the Soviet Union and its imperial Marxism. In Charles case he is no more than an Uncle Tom Marxist or continues a line of the Negro bourgeoisie won over to aspects of Marxism in its struggle against legal segregation. Charles writes that "Gorbachev had the better Marxist-materialist analysis at the level of universal human values" when in fact our fight is not over universal human values at all. Nor is our strategy and tactics based on universal human values because this is not the rules of engagement enforced by our degenerate bourgeoisie. Charles continue the line of Nilita Khrushchev and his demand for peace at all cost. Charles is simply protecting his most personal and individual social position in our society. In this sense he does what lawyers as a class do . . . lie and fabricate a truth. Melvin P. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
