Gina,s strategic world veiw?

Ken Howard kenhow at
Fri Apr 5 02:16:32 MST 1996

>Gina writes:
>>Well, let's see:Wasn't it 1978 when Haile Selasse was deposed in Ethiopia?
>>In 1979 there was Nicaragua; also Iran; What year was it in the 80s when
>>Marcos was forced out of the Phillipines?  Baby Doc out of Haiti?  In 1990
>>South Africa had to release Nelson Mandela, and many other political
>>prisoners, and had to dismantle de jure apartheid.
>>None of these was a proletarian revolution, and you could argue that some
>>weren't real "revolutions" in the sense of being "an act of violence by which
>>one class overthrows another", but they all were the product of the masses
>>rising up; they all were defeats of US imperialism in some fashion.  There's
>>other incidents too: the Palestinian intefada comes to mind.
>>There's also been full-scale People's War in Peru since 1980.  There's also
>>armed struggle in the Phillippines and in Turkey, and now in Nepal too.
>>US imperialism is not exactly having a field day.
>>Yes, imperialism still has its claws in the oppressed peoples of the world,
>>but its grip is being met with challenge after challenge.  On a world scale
>>as well as at home there's no way you can compare the health or overall
>>strength of the US, economically or politically, with what existed say in the
>>Gina/ Detroit
>Well, if a number of people on this list would write off Vietnam as a
>"defeat" and
>are unable to tell the difference between events that move the workingclass
>interests forward and backward-Gina at least goes in one direction and says
>that just about everybody who has picked up gun in the third is fighting
>If the people who see Vietnam as a "defeat" are deadly wrong, Lisa is also
>The problem with Lisa also proves the tradjectory of her politics. She is
>prepared to go in and alliance with just about anybody "against
>imperialism". This meaning subordinating the interests of the proletariat to
>its own bourgeoisie under the guise of fighting "american imperialism". All
>that stuff about the "proletariat" and masses must fight there own enemy at
>home of late coming from both you and adolfo when talking about Peru goes
>right out the window in your above.
>The problem as i see it with you Gina is that you have no understanding of
>which historical force can change things, nor in what interests and what
>class communist fight for the leadeship. I bet you even saw Khomeini and the
>mullahs as some sort of anti-imperialist force where  they are fuedal
>fundamentalists and would take the world back to the stone ages.
>As a worker, if the maoists on this list have any workers i would like to
>give you some advice. Aldolfo,s line and the line of the stalinists in
>general subordinate your interests to the bourgeoisie. And if you are a
>worker in an western industrial country you are basically
>counter-revolutionary. That is unless you renounce you own interests for the
>"masses" in the third world.
>Do you really think that any  thinking worker can beleive this stuff?
>By the way Gina you and Aldolfo are extremely quiet on Vietnam. You mention
>a whole number of things above but not Vietnam. What is your position on
>this question?
>And a serious question to other people on this list is; What if China and
>Vietnam begin to war against each other, who do you support?
>     --- from list marxism at ---
Ken: Again and yet again it becomes back to a question of marxism and not
just impressionism of the worst kind. The deposition of Marcos was not a
defeat for imperialism or the launching of a "democratic" revolution,.
During the 1986 electoral campaign the Philipine Communist Party boycotted.
In the emergence of "people power" it was disabled and played no role. The
toppling of Marcos was certainly fuelled by "people power" but the engine
was the Philipine ruling class and imperialism who could no longer tolerate
the embarrassment of Marcos's excesses and saw that the emergence of a
geniuine mass movement was probable unless he was deposed. It was now
dictator Ramos who was instrumental in shuffling the marcoses off and
defusing the mass movement.So successfull was imperialism that conditions
in the Philipines are far worse now then they ever were under Marcos and
the "peoples war' has all but been decimated.

Unless change is analysed from a class point the mistakes that Gina
continually makes lead into a political wilderness. Again, the release of
Mandela and recofiguration of apartheid in South Africa are not a defeat
for imperialism but merely a change to a more effective administration.
Similarly in Hiati imperialism engineers a solution that continues to serve
its interests.

If it is correct that the nature of the present period is one where the
outbreak of conflicts that have nationalism as a major element is on the
increase, i.e.such as has occured in the former jugoslavia, but is
potentially emerging in many area around the world, then how do marxists
analyse and relate to these events? It seems to me that this is an
important area for investigation which rational discussion in this forum
could progress productively.
Ken Howard.

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list