rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Fri Oct 4 09:11:14 MDT 1996
What you wrote (below) seems to be to be the only
half-way sensibe statement on Najibullah so far.
Only, you're mixing up Stalin with Brezhnev. It's true,
under Stalin's rule *some* social-imperialist actions
were undertaken. But in the main, he did represent the
interests of the proletariat. The *really* reactionary
character of he Soviet Union was not established until
approximately 1956, with Chrushchev etc.
>The Taliban offer nothing but a continuation of Afghanistan
>poeple's misery, in a slightly different form.
Yes, I think so too.
>But to mourn Najibullah's death is ridiculous.
>The death of one of the corrupt hypocritical Imperialist backed
>dictators shouldn't be mourned.
This is my view too. I hold it's even a good thing. He *was*
essentially what you're saying he was.
My only problem with his execution
>is that unfortunately they've just been replaced by another lot of
>corrupt hypocritical Imperialist backed dictators.
I agree on that too, and on my part pointed at the reactionary
character of those Talibans. Only, they're somewhat better anyway
than a government backed by foreign social-imperialist troops.
>A political alternative to fundamentalism in Afghanistan will only
>become viable in the region when the working class in Pakistan,
>Iran, and the Muslim states in the ex USSR moves into action again.
>Stalinist politics, which we have seen here in the mourning of
>Najibullah, are an obstacle to this. In fact, by identifying socialism
>with a set of regimes which oppress ordinary muslims, Stalinist politics
>directly strengthens the various shades of fundamentalism.
Yes, that which you call "Stalinist policies" certainly do that.
Only, as I wrote, the SU of the '70:s and '80:s was NOT "Stalinist"
>[ And quite what Gary's "the gains they represented for the workers" means
>to some Uzbeck agricultural worker who has seen their country turned
>into a cotton plantation by Russian Imperialism I don't know. There is a
>more concrete basis to talk about "the gains they represented for the workers"
>of your average liberal democracy. It doesn't make liberal democracies some
>none capitalist "workers state" , however large the quotation marks. ]
>What I want to know is why the dregs of Stalinism, who have dissappeared
>from the real world, have rematerialised on m1 ? Don't you lot understand ?
WE do - I think you must be meaning me, too. YOUR lot does not.
>Your politics have died, gone, kaput. It's the end. You lot perverted the
>real meaning of socialism for 60 years and now it's all over.
No, NOT for 60 years. The turn was in the 1950:s.
True, eve before that there were *some* things in that direction
you mean. But they were *not* the main thing then.
>understood this and had the good grace to commit political suicide. You lot
>are like the living hairs on a corpse.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism