A Quote on US Imperialism by Karl Marx--any comments?

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Mon Sep 23 11:55:56 MDT 1996

>Wei En Lin writes:
>>Passages in The
>>Communist Manifesto imply that bourgeois capitalism, international
>>capitalism, must destroy all the old feudal structures before socialism can
>>be acheived world-wide.
>Actually they imply "have destroyed" as far as the world market is
>concerned, and "will destroy" any pockets of feudal relations still left.
>There's no moralizing imperative "must" here.
>>Has this been achieved in Mexico, Central America,
>>South America, the Arab World, Africa, and most of Asia?
>It had been achieved in all essentials by the time the Manifesto was
>written. The content of economic processes in these countries was
>determined more and more by relations within the world market which no
>nation could escape. Any feudal structures they retained were more apparent
>than real.

Yeah, Mr Gas Bag - go tell that to the Peruvian, Mexican, Turkish, Arab,
African, Indian and Chinese millions who had to prostrate themselves before
the lords, work under the whip, and suffer decapitation for the crime of
refusing to lower their heads when the Mandarin/Gamonal/Mullah/etc.
palanquin was passing down the street in the shoulders of the porters.  This
was the world scene - as well described by Mariategui in relation to Peru,
>from the time of the Communist Manifesto until their liberation by THOSE WHO
Mao, Gonzalo and all those continuing with this process that has not yet
ended.  Obviously, an idealist like Hugh confusses what is potentially
possible by means of struggle and historical development with that which is
only a declaration of intent:

For Rodwell, it was enough to produce and publish a workers Manifesto for
all feudal structures to collapse ALL OVER THE WORLD at once, and those who
remained in place became then only "apparently feudal" - just like they only
cost the poor peasants apparent exploitation and their "apparent" heads in
the chopper.

It seems that for this "visionary Trot" that the publication of the
Communist Manifesto was just like as if Joshua Rodwell had blown the trumpet
seven times around the walls of bourgeois Jericho!  The case of Mr. Rodwell
is obviously a case of a man in a religious trance!  No wonder all his
revolutionary activity revolves around thumping his Trotskyst Bible!

Does anyone have an educated guess to explain how does someone like Rodwell
manages to continue to believe that he is affecting the concrete world with
his gaseus and barren lucubrations?  Is it, perchance, a case of sympathetic
magic? You just publish a Trotskyst tract and the era changes automatically,
or something like that?


Seems that Bilenkin is also caught that bug!  That article in LALKAR has
really hit home, heh?  The gentlemen Trotskysts are really building up an
impressive curriculum of close quarters defence IN PRACTICE of ALL kinds of
agents of reaction. Solidarity with Orwell?  Solidarity with Malecki?
Solidarity between Malecki, Rodwell and Quispe?  Solidarity of Quispe with

I am certain that Lenin was 100% on target when he said:

"Trotsky... as always, entirely disagrees with the social-chauvinists in
principle, but agrees with them in everything in practice".

February 1917 (one month before the collapse of Czarism)
"The name Trotsky signifies: Left phraseology and a bloc with the right
against the aims of the left".

Something all other should ponder!

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

More information about the Marxism mailing list