The "Franco-German Peace Plan"
benj at connexus.net.au
Tue Feb 11 16:37:58 MST 2003
jay (www.neravt.com/left/) wrote:
I certainly wouldn't want to defend how Maoist China -- at least late Maoist
China -- handled the contradictions. But, as an old Maoist it makes sense
to me in a case like this to go back to Mao's essay "On Contradictions"
about "primary" and "secondary" contradictions. U.S. imperialism is the
primary contradiction, the main enemy of the world's peoples. Saddam
Hussein's regime is one of a greater number of secondary contradictions.
Plus, isn't my memory correct that Lenin's Bolsheviks supported the emir of
Afghanistan of his day to the extent -- and to that extent only -- that he
was an obstacle to the larger imperialist threat, the Brits?
I'm generally in agreement with Jay's comments, but I'd be worried if we only put U.S. imperialism as the "primary contradiction". Would this mean we support the European peace plan after all? (That wasn't what you meant, was it Jay?)
I think it's very similar to the "gunboat diplomacy" disputes prior to the first world war: the imperialists are trying to divide and re-divide the world into their own spheres of interest. We can support their victims if in a limited sense, as a lesser evil (unless you actually live and are active in Iraq -- where you would have to be anti-Hussein I think). But just because one power is predominant (Britain in 1900; the USA now) we obviously have to oppose all the imperialists.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism