Young Liberal Fascist (XII)

SHAWGI TELL v600a8e6 at ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Sat Feb 10 07:00:20 MST 1996



On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Mark Lockett wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 9 Feb 1996 Godenas at aol.com wrote:
> 
> > This is true of his assertion that Stalin made
> > important theoretical contributions to revolutionary marxist thought.  For
> > nearly thirty years, and for literally hundreds of millions of people, the
> > writings of Stalin were their first and, in many cases, most impressionable
> > introdction to Marxism-Leninism.
> 
> 
> I think that answer one of the most often asked questions on the left of 
> recent years - Why has the world communist movement gone down the toilet 
> in the last few years?
> > 
> Mark Lockett
> mlockett at earwax.pd.uwa.edu.au
> http://www.pd.uwa.edu.au/Physics/Undergrads/Mark_Lockett/

First, from what I understand and know, the world Communist movement has 
not "gone down the toilet."  There are many many Communist parties on 
this planet making progress. I do know that imperialism, though, IS
sending millions and millions down the toilet very rapidly.  There is 
ample data to demonstrate the extent of the economic terrorism waged by 
imperialist countries, the countries that have bombed Latin America, the 
Middle East and particularly Africa, back 100 years.  Communism never did 
anything of this sort.

To find answers to questions such as why, say, the USSR "collapsed," it 
is instructive, I think, to understand the role and significance of 
class-collaborators such as Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin.  
These mafia-connected agents of capitalist restoration facilitated the 
internal anti-Communist trend in the former USSR.  Accordingly, they 
adversely affected many pro-Communist trends on the face of the earth.

Lenin and Stalin were responsible for greatly developing the Soviet 
Union.  What took Stalin about 20 years to develop, took the 
above-mentioned class-collaborators about twice as long, with the aid of 
ultra-reactionary bourgeois imperialists, to dismantle.

There are many sources that detail how progressive the Soviet Union was in 
relation to most other countries combined.  As is well known, while most 
of the world suffered the effects of the 1930s depression, the Soviet Union 
soared and burgeoned forward.  

Has Communism declined?  Have progressive forces diminished?  Have 
anti-imperialist efforts disappeared?  In my view, the answer to all 
these questions is no.  As imperialism spreads and grows more and more 
reactionary, as imperialism becomes more and more parasitic, people will 
necessarily engage in resistance.  This, in my opinion, is a historical and 
dialectical necessity.  Incidentally, genuine socialist countries have 
never had and cannot have imperialist aspirations.  Only capitalist
countries can aspire to imperialist status.  Thus, prior to 1953, the 
Soviet Union necessarily adopted an anti-imperialist stance.  After 1953 
they adopted a social-imperialist stance.  That is, they were socialists 
in words and speech and imperialists in deeds and actions.  This fact 
alone helps us to better understand the precise nature of military build-up 
efforts in imperialist countries.

Out of time for the moment.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
V600A8E6 at UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU



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



More information about the Marxism mailing list