[Marxism] Moderator's note/China

Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Tue Nov 21 12:27:24 MST 2006


>CB: What about the problem that they were building socialism in one country

Yes, after I saw Henry Kissinger toasting the Chinese in 1972, it reminded
me why Lenin was correct to push for worldwide revolution.

^^^^^
CB: Even Lenin could only _talk_ about revolution in other countries.

 In Korea, where China gave a "push for worldwide revolution", it is not
clear that the U.S. was not on the verge of nuking the "worldwide
revolutionists", after killing on the order of magnitude of 2 million with
conventional weapons, after dropping nukes on Japan, with that Yankee,
anti-Asian racism (afterall, Americans know that Asians value human life
less than white people, so what if we kill a lot of them - sarcasm) Don't
you think that the U.S. war on Vietnam was in part a demonstration war
warning China ? Those searching for a historical _materialist_ , i.e. class
struggle, explanation for the Viet Nam war might look at that.

Imagine the response of the United States , if China had really started
giving material support ( which would be only military support given China's
poverty) to revolutions in a lot of other countries. "Pushing" for worldwide
revolution is not so easy in a world with nuclear armed imperialism. It
wasn't very feasible even before the advent of nuclear weapons.

China was forced by objective reality to confine itself to building
socialism in one country. Certainly anti-Stalinists can tell us what the
history of the SU has taught about where the road of building socialism in
one country leads. 

The discussions of the unwisdom "market socialism" in China fail to take
account of the larger world context which included worldhistorically
bellicose imperialism in the U.S.A.  "The John Birch Society" has a quaint
ring for those with an American Exceptionalist mentality, when in fact they
represented part of a fascist corps in a state that had the weapons
capability of dwarfing the destruction of Nazi's anti-Communist war. Taking
account of the totality of global political circumstances should impact the
analyses of Hart-Landsberg and Burkett's and others. Otherwise, they fall
into economism, tunnel vision that focuses only on the "shopfloors" in
China, trade unionism pure and simple, in a political world that is not that
simple.

A dialectical approach must consider the _whole_. In this case, the whole
includes the big bad wolf of imperialism, armed to the teeth with nuclear
weapons, not just the internal circumstances in China.

Until U.S. commies bring "worldwide" revolution to the U.S. to the extent
that the U.S. government declares for world peace and nuclear disarmament,
American Marxists might want to chill some their commier-than-thou critiques
of China. 






More information about the Marxism mailing list