MAL: Gina,s strategic world veiw?

Rubyg580 at Rubyg580 at
Sun Apr 7 11:35:49 MDT 1996

In a message dated 96-04-05 Robert Malecki responds to Gina:

>>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 1950s.
>>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 imperialism.
>If the people who see Vietnam as a "defeat" are deadly wrong, Lisa is
>also wrong. 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.

The point of my bringing up these struggles: Vietnam and Iran (among
others) is to say that they objectively were struggles against imperialism,
which objectively shook up the imperialist structure, particularly that of
the US.  The Vietnamese people DID defeat the US.  The US was not
able to accomplish any of its aims in keeping domination over that
country.  The fact that the leadership of the Vietnamese side was not
proletarian, and could not keep the revolutionary direction going after
their victory is another aspect ofthe situation.  It does not invalidate
the fact that it was a defeat for US imperialism.

The same with Iran.  It was a popular uprising of the MASSES in Iran
that sent the Shah scurring around the world looking for a place to
hide.  He was run out of Panama after that, and died in a hospital in
the US, the home of his master.  Again, the fact that there was no
proletarian leadership ready to step in and lead that struggle does not
diminish the fact that it was a defeat for the US.  They lost a very
important solid strategic alliance, which they've been trying to rebuild
ever since, with overtures to the "moderates"among the ruling mullahs.

No, these mullahs are not anti-imperialist except in the weakest sense.
Their rule has not liberated the nation or the masses.  Still, the US has
not been able to fully repair the damage to its material interests in the
region, or to its prestige (remember the 440-day takeover of the embassy
in Tehran?) that the Iranian revolution inflicted.  It also took some time
for the Mullahs to consolidate their rule; for several months at least,
there was no effective central government in Iran, and after that there
were several prime ministers that were either driven to exile or executed.

>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.

What this fails to grasp is that the proletariat is an international class.
The interests of workers in any particular country cannot beseparated from
the interests of the workers in any and all other countries.  It is exactly
bourgeoisies that want us to see our interests as having to be "renounced'
in order to support the masses in the third world.

In fact, whenever we support struggles that truly strike blows against
imperialism, whether by peasants in Mexico or miners in Britain;
whether it's People's War in Peru or anti-apartheid struggles in
South Africa, we are supporting our own interests as members of
the international proletariat.

>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?

I hope I've begun to answer 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?

The question of  which side to support in a war depends on the nature
of the conflict, not on simply which are the two sides.  So it's really
impossible to answer a hypothetical question like this.

Gina/ Detroit

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list