malecki at algonet.se
Thu Aug 1 01:53:18 MDT 1996
>But even on Lenin's definition there were periods when Russia clearly did drain
>capitaL from E>Europe eg in the years immediately after the war when stalin
>looted East Germany, Hungary etc sending back railway line, capital equipment
>and whole factories to Russia. Also there was capitaL flow inside the USSR from
>the Asiatic and other non-European parts to the imperialist Russia heartlands.
>The gross national oppression within the old USSR was also an imperialist
>policy. There was a clear economic motivation in the Stalinists oppression of
>the non_rUssian peopl's it was not simply because Stalin did not understand the
Mick, Jorn and others on the list who claim that the former Soviet union was
imperialist are dead wrong. The above about what the Stalinists did
immediately after the second world war had nothing to do with imperialist
policies, but was a continuation of the Stalinist bureaucracy's bonapartist
policies of disarming the possibilty of workers revolution.
It is well documented Stalins mistrust of all who opposed him in Russia
after coming to power. He did everything in his power to eliminate the
opposition. And in East Europe this meant dismantling just about everything
and sending it back to the Soviet Union connected to Red Army occupation and
building up and infrastructure of loyal Stalinist hacks in these countries.
But after that new industries were built up and in places like
Checkoslavakia the arms industries were built up again. In fact many of the
weapons that wound up in the third world came from these factories.
At this point in time the Soviet Union certainly was playing and
anti-imperialist role despite the Stalinist policies! Or do the "State Caps"
think that the cold war was just a myth?
And in regards to Cuba. Trotskyists do not critize the Stalinists for
exporting guns or whatever to the Cubans. In fact we would have called for a
nuclear shield of the Cubans against imperialist attack. But we do critize
the price ticket that went along with it. Although the Cubans, unlike the
Vietnamese, were not as servile to the Stalinists as far as politics were
concerned. But the Cubans certainly did not or perhaps could not avoid
capitulating to Kremlin bureaucrats either.
In fact i agree that the United States was partially responsible for
throwing the Cuban leadership into the arms of the Russians. However that
was certainly a step to the left (!) in the early days of the Cuban
Revolution. Unfortunately i have to agree with Louis that the Cubans
certainly had to choose between the support of the Stalinists in material
things in order for the Revolution to survive. However I disagree that this
line in the long run can lead to success.
And in fact much of the Cubans exporting of revolution depended on material
>from Russia but also and ideology which was at best centrist in character.
And the proof is that today Cuba is more isolated then ever before.
Naturally it is the duty of every revolutionary to defend Cuba against
imperialism, however to ignore the possibilities of building a revolutionary
International based on struggle for power, the Cubans appear to be caught in
the Stalinist ideology of a popular front against the Americans
Internationally based on a program of petty bougeois peace organisations.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism