[Marxism] Jack Kelley, Stalinism and acknowledging your sources

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Tue Mar 23 16:25:34 MST 2004

In a message dated 3/23/2004 2:45:48 PM Central Standard Time, 
bendien at tomaatnet.nl writes:

>Which leads me to Melvin's argument. Melvin says, "The neoconservative
apologists of christianist imperialism" have nothing what so ever to do with
Stalin - here I concede to the incorrect idea that Stalin
was the worst person on earth". But I have never said that Stalin was the
worst person on earth, he wasn't. Mr Bush isn't either. I don't know who it
is, never met that person, glad to say, and I don't know if it got into the
Guiness Book of Records either.

Then Melvin asks: "How can the reactionary ideologists of American
imperialism be "New Stalinists" when they created the fundamental logic and
mechanism for the falsification of history?". Well, if you please, Stalin
came from a religious background, and even tried for a stint at Seminary
School as a youth. Whereas Trotsky was a drop-out mathematician. Lenin was a
law student.  Stalin's ascent to dictatorial power was based not on making a
socialist revolution, but on a modernisation programme based on the decline
of real workingclass struggles. His power was based not so much on his real
capacity to lead, but on wiping out his opponents through bureaucratic
maneouvres, purges, and extermination. This created a conservative,
defensive ideology.<


We have a different - radically different perspective. 

Stalin's ascent to power was based on winning the votes and confidence of 
people. In politics there are always winners and losers. To defeat an opponent in 
a political context presupposes support of the various elements that 
constitute the process. 

We can agree to disagree. 

You state in no uncertain terms that the neo-con historians are Stalinists 
and explain your rationalization. 

I state, no. To define them as Stalinists misses the historical evolution 
that began with the European colonialization of America, the slaughter of the 
American Indian and the slavery of the African and the emergence of American 
white supremacy as an ideological justification that is the falsification of 
history. This is the material substance of Christian ideology. 

What you call Christian theology is a European mode of philosophic 
dissertation that justifies the destruction of the earth based on a metaphysical view of 
man and nature. To be "in the world and not of it is" is an ideological 
formulation of a profound breach in man himself. The intellectuals of the imperial 
centers have generally formulated this under the heading of "alimentation." 

This is incorrect and imperialists - chauvinist, ideology. 

I correctly pin pointed your mode of exposition as a form of ideological 
white chauvinism. Christian ideology cannot be separated from white chauvinism. 
This is certainly obvious to the majority of intellectuals in the world today. 

In the realm of politics our difference is why you are a socialist and I am 
the communist. 

In other words you want a society with me securely on the bottom and of 
course I cannot agree with this. Communism means the abolition of property. 
Socialism means a transformation in the form of property. The latter is predicated 
upon not abolishing the historically evolved intractable social positions that 
is class. 

You can call the neo-cons "Stalinists" but they are rabid white chauvinists. 
This is the salient feature so obvious that one can only argue this point with 
someone espousing white chauvinism. 

For whatever reason you deny this elementary truth through omission of the 

Ask the world intellectuals if the falsification of history by my imperialist 
bourgeois - as ideological neocons, is a form of Stalinism or rank white 

I do hope you recover from your illness. 

Melvin P. 

More information about the Marxism mailing list