(snip)
>
> Instead of repeating the same points, why don’t we
> summarize this
> entire discussion by you answering the following
> questions. I will
> approach you as I did the Trots when I was on their
> NG.
>
> 1. How much capitalist activity would you allow in
> a socialist system
> and why?
Rafael reply,
as little as posible specially in the beginin as NEP
in Soviet.
My reply,
You will have to excuse me on this one Rafael because you caused me to
literally burst out laughing. There is not a Marxist worth his weight
in sea water that would not agree with that comment. The question is:
How much is too much. How and when do you make the call? What is your
criterion. We all want as little as possible. That is not even an
issue. The question is how much is too much. For many even Lenin’s NEP
was definitely too much.
> 2. Was the Soviet Union a socialist nation from
> 1918 onward?
Rafael
Depend what do you mean with socialism. I think the
socialism began after Russian Revolution
My reply,
Based upon Commandante Che’s comments I don’t think he agrees with
you. I was wanting his opinion.
but after
stalin the socialism was really stablished as system,
then the representation of the workers and peasants
were mayority in the Communist Patry.
And China had had learn a lot of in order to avoid
restoration like Tengs made.
> 3. How would you distinguish a socialist system
> from a capitalist
> system?
Rafael
I ca say depend in which period and in what country.
My reply,
Huh? I asked for definitions and differences, not examples.
Because the extent of development of the socialism
were not iqual everywhere. But we must define the
concept of socialism according tio Historical
materialism socialism is " a transition period between
capitalism and communism"
My reply,
I would agree with your last comment. That is a key point that some
seem to miss, especially when it comes to critical aspects of same.
but not at all restoration
period from socialism to capitalism as Tend did.
My reply,
If you think Deng turned China into a capitalist country, then I would
ask you the same questions I asked Commandante Che. Please note my
prior post.
> 4. Since members of the bourgeoisie were allowed to
> operate in China Mao ruled, how is he different from
Deng?
Rafael
In Maos period specially untill Lin Piao's death
working class and the peasants have had a lot of power
against the class enemies. But after Lin piao and Mao
Teng and Chou restablished all revisionists purged in
the Cultural Revolution in the Communist party and
there was no more posibility of controlling and
purging all the corrupt cadres if they cooperated with
revisionists.After Lin the Chinese exterior politics
became pro-fascist and west friendly. And the
bureucratical bourgeoisie class captured the power,
and restored the antisocialist private property in the
economy. Have you forgot the
Chinese-Pinochet,Mobuto's, etc good relations and
sometime also goog relations with the multinational
companies?
My reply,
I know this is your analysis of the situation and your digression is
interesting but I fail to see how you answered my question, so I will
repeat it.
Since members of the bourgeoisie were allowed to operate in China under
Mao’s leadership, how is he different from Deng?
> 5. Since you claim the Tiananmen crowd were trying
> to restore socialism
> and prevent the installation of creeping capitalism
> by Deng, why were
> there no pictures of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin
> in the crowd and no
> Marxist symbols of any significance displayed such
> as the Hammer and
Rafael
in the future you will see clearer the real ideology
of the mayority of demostrator in the Tiananmen.
My reply,
In other words you don’t have an answer at this time and are merely
promising to provide one later. I hope the wait is not too long, as we
are all growing older.
Now I recommend you not use the personal atacks when
you reply to "Joseph" or "comandante Che".
My reply,
I did not engage in a personal attack. How can you say that? I merely
asked a question. He calls himself Commandante Che and Joseph Stalin
when, in fact, he is neither. That has an air of presumption about it.
Suppose an American told you his name was George Washington and Abraham
Lincoln. What would you think? I know there are Christians who call
themselves Jesus Christ but Marxists should be above fantasying. If you
want notoriety you have to make your own name for yourself, not coopt
someone else’s.
Maybe he
hat strong identity with Stalin and Che as my self and
it is not bad to dare use the name of the
revolutionaries publicly in order to defend them and
their ideology.
My reply,
You are not just using their names; you are adopting them as your own.
I certainly relate to Stalin and Che also but I have never sought to
usurp their names.
It is worse when the capitalists and
revisionists use those names in order to gane money
and get profits or cheat people. Here in Sweden you
can see often reklam or commersials with pictures of
Marx, Lenin,Che, etc in order to utilise their
popularity and sell more.
My reply,
Precisely and that is why you should refrain from such activity as
people could conclude you are trying to sell your ideas under the
Che/Stalin label.
We have to discuss with
political arguments nos with personal atacks.
My reply,
I agree and don’t feel I have deviated from that approach.
But
anyway I would recommend "Joseph" to change his web
name, because it can be subjet of misunderstandings
and unnecessary contradictions. But "Joseph's"
arguments I think are good and credibles.
greetings
My reply,
I would agree that he needs to change his web name but can’t agree with
some of his key ideas which you claim are good and credible.
For the cause,
Klo
Rafael
>
=== message truncated ===
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
