CPC still bars business people from party

Macdonald Stainsby mstainsby at SPAMtao.ca
Fri Mar 9 03:59:41 MST 2001

> China was an empire and stomped all over its
> peripheries in the past. It continues to do so in Tibet. The point of any
> Marxism is to denounce oppression *everywhere*.

No, that is the role of liberalism. Marxists take a rather more long term view. One
has to A) determine the impact of their denouncing of China on any issue, while a
campaign is being waged against China by "our" governments in North America. Saying
that the issue is not for us to determine is not the same as supporting policy. It is
a defense of sovereignty.
B) determine what the impact of a split, weakened China would be on the chances of
anti-Imperialist struggles to succeed or gain ground. If Marxism means anything, it
means actions based on a synthesis of knowledge. How would we in North America gain
either ground on our enemies (our enemies are at home), or go about "saving Tibet"?
Who would we be saving Tibetans from? The government that nationalised the wealth of
the horrendously wealthy corrupt feudal monks and abbots of the Dalai Lama'sd little
playground? Are we "saving" Tibet for them and their slaves and castes?

I can see only a very dangerous slide into a game much like that of Kosovo if we play
along here. We have to start seeing these "causes" as the Trojan Horses they are, and
against national sovereignty. Really, that is the common thread in all these battles.


More information about the Marxism mailing list