China prepares to invade Taiwan

Macdonald Stainsby mstainsby at
Wed Jun 7 20:12:59 MDT 2000

> Henry writes that "we must support all communist
> (sic?)
> governments" despite their (if you can believe this
> phrase) "transitional imperfections."  Abu Nasr adds
> that failing to do so is "objectively class treason."
> Was this argument also used against those who
> criticized the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia?
> Stalin's terror?

While refusing to get into this debate (Dubchek [sp?], Stalin etc.), I
believe the point Henry and Abu are making has nothing to do with writing
any government a blank check; it means that we defend the existence of the
(sometimes distorted) workers state *unconditionally*, and particularly
against Imperialism. Whether one likes/disagrees with this or that policy is
beside the point. The point is that we must defend the state in order that
it may be given the space and mobility *without outside attacks* that will
allow it to find the proper course. If we say "to hell with you", the entire
project becomes more isolated, paranoid, unstable and even less perfect.
Their job is to build the new state as best as possible, ours is to defend
that state and make our own revolution. Period. They aren't going to listen
to your critiques anyways, anymore than they have the right to make your
revolution. I hope people aren't too sqeamish about defending reality up
against the perfect society blueprint...and this is the outcome that makes
me say I am not in favour of describing the kind of "socialism we want".
Then, when it doesn't materialize, some Marxists feel "betrayed".  In
reality, at the time we withdraw defense, we are the betrayers. Too bad so
many didn't see that on March 24th, 1999.


More information about the Marxism mailing list