Waiting, uh, preparing, to ride the second wave...

Craven, Jim jcraven at clark.edu
Mon Feb 4 17:27:51 MST 2002

Derrick wrote:

Perhaps one of the factors for the failure of this "first wave" was the
tendency of armchair revolutionaries to abstain from actually fighting
imperialism, waiting instead for that distant day when the objective
conditions would arrive for the painless, complete, and finsihed transition
to socialism.

Response (Jim C): How about imperialist encirclement and social systems
engineering? The western imperialist powers, from 1917 onward, have had a
conscious and self-declared plan to put all socialist experiments under
seige, finding vulnerabilities and contradictions to exploit and exacerbate,
cultivating traitors and placing them in key positions, assassinating
leaderships, engineering socioeconomic and political crises such that
societies under siege, would react like any society under siege, with the
result that any "inefficiencies", famines, abridgments of "civil liberties",
"deformations", etc could then be used as "proof" of the "validity" of
various Cold War caricatures about socialism and the inevitability of its
"doom"--"the end of history."

In addition to some of the usual "armchair revolution", we might add the
tendency of some of the illustrious "Vanguardists" to support revolution
everywhere but where it is really going on and to "make revolution"
everywhere but where they actually live (running everbody else's revolutions
from a distance.)

History is far from over. But quote-mongering, formulaics, sectarianism and
ideological hair-splitting and debating about how many revolutionary angels
can dance on a vanguardist pin-head ain't going to get us anywhere.

Jim Craven

See below:

Brzezinski Admits Afghan
Islamism Was Made In Washington
>From Bill Blum

Source - emperorsclothes list



Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski Admits: Afghan Islamism Was Made in

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser in 'Le Nouvel Observateur' (France) Jan 15-21, 1998 p.76

[Note: There are at least two editions of 'Le Nouvel Observateur.' With
apparently the sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent
to the United States is shorter than the French version. The Brzezinski
interview was not included in the shorter version.] ___

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his
memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to
aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention.
In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter.
You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to
the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army
invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until
now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President
Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the
pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going
to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they
intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in
Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of
truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the
effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to
regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote
to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its
Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentlaism,
having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of
Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic
fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to
Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a
rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading
religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in
common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan
militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries. ___

Translated from the French by Bill Blum Author, "Killing Hope: US Military
and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the
World's Only Superpower" Portions of the books can be read at:

The U.S. Government Energy Information factsheet on Afghanistan dated
December 2000 says that: ``Afghanistan's significance from an energy
standpoint stems from its geographic position as a potential transit route
for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This
potential includes proposed multi-billion dollar oil and gas export
pipelines through Afghanistan.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list