marxism-digest V2 #943

Zeynep Tufekcioglu zeynept at turk.net
Thu Apr 25 12:12:24 MDT 1996


Bob wrote:

>
>However the Social democrats were the natural allies of its own nation state
>historically and a direct link to keeping the working class in check. The
>Stalinists
>led and economically supported by the Soviet Union were more interested in
>peaceful co-existence and socialism in one country at least in western Europe.

Zeynep:
I agree that the social democrats and the European communists parties played
an important conciliatory role. I don't want to argue, and I think that we
should view the European communism of the past very very critically. I just
want to say that, in those parties, there seems to be many true
revolutionaries that thought that they were doing the right thing for
socialism in the world. I'd rather not judge them, but don't support their
position.

>>2- "Cold War". It had to buy off its own working class.
>
>I think that the cold war also in a sense was not just, a great era for the
>spy business, but also in a sense the political expression of a world where
>the working class in general was tired of the slaughter. It was also a
>re-consolidation of the political powers that came out on top. Foremost the
>Americans and the Soviet Union. Besides the bourgeoisie and the stalinists
>had no real ideological preparation for continuing the war. Wars are won by
>sending workers into the trenches! They had tricked the workers into the
>great "patriotic alliance" against the Nazis and the Japanese. Millions of
>people died for this.But the cold war was a reaction of the political powers
>that came out of the second world war in preparation for the next war...

Zeynep:
Yes, wars are won by sending the workers to trenches. I also believe that
millions who died in the fight against fascism did just that, they died to
fight fascism. Let's leave it at that. I don't like "patriotic" anything,
but I think that historically, I'm on the side of the soviet partisans who
fought the fascists. Ideology of the masses is always clouded and muddy.

>>3- Entering all other parts of the world where it had not entered before.
This i find hard to beleive. Imperialism at least economically had already
entered most of the world before the war. That was what the war was about-a
redivision of the spoils of imperialist control of the world..

Correction; you are right. I mean, switching from exploiting as "raw
material sources", to integrating into the capitalist system as capitalist
producers and consumers. But, there is a difference.


>This might be true. I am not a economist. But i think that the crisis is a
>classic crisis of the system of over-production and inter-imperialist
>rivilry. ie preparations for the next war and a new redivision of the spoils..

Yes, exactly. It just runs in cycles, the last two cycles were before the
first and second imperialist wars.


>Yes, i have been saying that in order for another generation to have the
>wealth of the post war brat generation at least in the west, it will take
>another war and millions of new victums under this system...

Again exactly, of course there is another alternative isn't there. Socialism.

>Yes, and we have to overthrow the bourgeois state and build a new communist
>international.

Couldn't put it better. That's the heart of the message.

I'm going to use your very useful information about Sweden in my classes
with workers. That's exactly the point. We tell the workers, forget
social-democracy, nothing left to offer.

Best,
Zeynep Tufekcioglu




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list