[Marxism] Cuba: the litmus test?
elishastephens at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 27 16:22:45 MST 2007
Louis P: "Walter's politics today are much more like
the Marcyites who split with the SWP after the Soviet invasion of
Hungary in 1956. They supported the tanks in terms not much different
from Walter's special pleading on behalf of the Chinese government
today. This is not Marxism, but a kind of economic determinism. Just
take the opposite position from the imperialists. If they pillory
Mugabe, then there must be something good about him."
But there almost always IS something "good" about those the imperialists
pillory, because they pillory countries (and demonize their leaders) for a
REASON. If nothing else, what is probably "good" about someone pilloried by
imperialism is that they are resisting the penetration of imperialist capital.
Or perhaps they insist on maintaining an independent foreign policy.
Imperialists don't just pillory somebody for the hell of it, and they CERTAINLY
don't pillory countries and their leaders because they are really concerned
about the women or workers or gays or Jews or whatever in the countries in question.
Louis P: "Walter says he is
not that much interested in "theory" nowadays. I would say that he is
not that interested in the truth, a somewhat more important question."
This is absurd. One's position on the Soviet invasion of Hungary isn't
determined by the "truth," it's determined by theory. Characterizing something
as a "workers' state," or "state capitalist," or characterizing something as a
"counterrevolution," etc., all those things are not "truth," they are "theory."
"Truth" enters into it, of course, because there are actual facts, but even
there it often seems that the facts are malleable. Is this guy Stalin in
Venezuela a "rightist" or an "ultraleftist"? From what I gather, you can find
people claiming both. Even "facts" may depend on theory.
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
More information about the Marxism