Afghanistan and the Maoist-Islamic Talibans
rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Fri Oct 4 11:34:48 MDT 1996
>You wrote (and why the old type trancription "En Lin",
>btw? - since 1979, the other way is used in China, as
>prepared in Mao's time):
>>Greetings from Wei En Lin to all comrades:
>>Doctrinaire and Sincere Marxists feel compelled to mourn the death of
>By no means. Only doctrinaire revisionists and social-imperialists
>would do so. The Soviet social-imprialists invaded one country
>here in Europe, too, remember, Checkoslovakia in 1968. Did Mao
>Zedong *applaud* this? On the contrary, he sharply condemned it.
>>Reality is complex and messy. Najibullah did advance the cause of women
>>in Afghanistan, but his heavy-handed Stalinist approach to politics
>>revealed him to be a tool of Soviet "social-imperialism."
>NOT "Stalinist". Despite everything, Stalin in the main COMBATED
>revisionism. Tool of social-imperialism WITHOUT QUOTES he was.
[NOTE, when seeing what I wrote here: I mean Najubullah, *not*
Stalin, of course, by that last sentence. - RM]
>>Marx probably would have supported the USSR's effective annexation of
>>Afghanistan, as he supported Imperialist France's conquest of Tunisia
>>and the US conquest of Mexican territories--these are cases of the
>>oppressor being more progressive than the indigenous feudal ruling
>Marx would NEVER have done so. There *are* some cases of the oppressor
>being more progressive, so far correct. This by no means was the case
>with aggressive social-imperialism, a mainstay of reaction.
>>But the Taliban mix together Islam and Maoist ideology. They have
>>tremendous grassroots support.
>Do the Taliban in some way say they're for Mao Zedong? That undoubtedly
>would be a fake.
>>Most unfortunate is the bare fact that a grassroots revolutionary
>>political movement could not succeed at this stage if it did not combine
>>feudal ideology with populist socialism.
>>The same difficulty exists throughout the Islamic World.
>>Wei En Lin.
>So the US imperialists, for instance, should be welcomed to make
>some aggression in the Middle East? I don't think that you're
>the worst one among those who, indirectly, seem to be advocating
>this, among the friends on this list of the Soviet social-imperialists,
>but this would follow from your logic too, wouldn't it?
> --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism