[Marxism] (no subject)
ffeldman at bellatlantic.net
Wed Jul 2 21:30:08 MDT 2008
The late Mark Jones disagreed with about everything I said, and vice-versa.
But, I wrote on one occasion, if Savimbi had won in Angola, and if 3 years
after that he fell out with his imperialist sponsors, even if it was over
his simple greed to claim more of the mineral wealth as his own, and if
those sponsors then called for sanctions or fielded a force to overthrow
Savimbi, we, as Marxists would oppose those sanctions and that field force
without changing our analysis and opposition to Savimbi one bit. Mark
wrote me to say that he found that our agreement on that position to be
worth more than all the strenuous disagreements we had.
Fred Feldman comments:
Well, this is the closest thing to a statement I 100 percent agree with in
the discussion. Of course Mugabe is not a Savimbi. More to the point, he is
not a Lumumba, a Mandela, or a Thomas Sankara either. The US and British
imperialists are after him, not because of how determinedly he has stood up
to them (although he is not simply a puppet -- his gang interests come way
ahead of his neoliberal commitments, which the imperialists do not like) but
because imperialism is ON THE OFFENSIVE IN AFRICA.
And because it furthers the propaganda that all the problems in Africa are
due to the incapacity of the Africans to rule themselves. Give the land back
to the white farmers so they can make the desert bloom! (By the way, Louis
was wrong to reduce what happened to in Russia a suppression of the Kulaks
which destroyed agriculture. What happened was the crushing of the entire
peasantry in the name of eliminating the Kulaks. The return of the land to
the white farmers would be a completely reactionary outcome in Zimbabwe,
even though the patronage-driven land reform is not the solution that is
Luko considers Tsvangirai an enemy. So do I. Of course, I think and I assume
that Luko thinks that Mugabe is an enemy to. Right now, all that exists in
Zimbabwe is a choice between enemies of the people.
That is why I think the best stop-gap solution might actually be a MDC-ZANU
coalition to head off what I fear will be a Congo-type civil war, complete
with interventions from Botswana, Congo, and other neighboring countries out
to grab spoils. I will give no support to such a coalition, but I fear that
a civil war will be a dead end under present conditions. (And I am not
someone who imagines that war is always worse than "peace."
Of course, this is something that the left ZANU-phobes (and there is a lot
to be phobic about, but phobia is never a good guide) think is the PURE
imperialist solution. (Just like they imagine that imperialism is really 100
percent in support of China in Tibet and so forth, and basically in support
of Mugabe, and so on. The pose enables them can feel independent of
imperialism when they take hard-line pro-MDC or pro Tibet independence
positions, with the actual public imperialist positions being proclaimed
nonexistent by declaring them "hypocritical."
Finally, I want to take up the character of the debate that took place, in
which the position which the position that focused on opposition to
imperialist intervention was crudely, and without any factual proof,
amalgamated with support to Mugabe's cops and troops against the people.
Lueko Willms wrote:
"Morgan Tsvangirai has called for foreign, especially imperialist powers to
have a decisive say about which government the people of Zimbabwe might
"I consider Mr. Tsvangirai as an enemy. Remind you: I have learned my
staunch opposition against colonialism from the Angolans, even before
I knew anything of Vietnam."
Note that Lueko did not say a word in favor of Mugabe. Not one.
"Another fan of cops tearing down shacks in Harare..."
"I don't suggest that those who think differently be given a Time
Machine tour to Argentina, jan-march 1976 (that is during the last 90
days of the Isabel Perón regime). But it would be a sobering
experience, indeed. This regime was overwhelmingly inept and brutally
violent. It was overthrown under imperialist auspices on March 24,
"Our local Tsvangirais, Raúl Alfonsín as the cheerleader, supported the
military overthrow of Isabel Perón (Communist Party included, and as
late as 1978 they were still supporting, yes, supporting the military
regime in power).'"
And then he wrote:
The problem still stands that when an imperialist intervention is on
the agenda, some people, tediously, honestly claim -as I claim myself-
that the "conflict [...] between [ZANU-PF, substitute adequate acronym
in different environments, for example Isabel Perón] and the working
class" will be solved _during and through_ the battle against
imperialist intervention and that thus if we really want to "take the
side of the working class and the political parties and grass roots
organizations that fight on their behalf" -mind you: not just those
that SAY TO FIGHT ON THEIR BEHALF!- then we must not, under any
argument, promote the so-called "class" (should I write, er,
"classist", or even "classy"?) "interests of the working class" above
the _main_ interest of the working class, which is not to allow
imperialists to get any footing into the country. Particularly vicious
is the "humanitarian" or "democratic" footing. One does not need to
OPENLY PROMOTE this option in order to support it, not even WANT IT TO
Note that Nestor said not one word in defense of Mugabe or any of his
actions. Who can, of course! But that is part of imperialism's big advantage
here, as with Saddam Hussein.
"Another defender of cops tearing down shacks underneath all the
So how can anyone be sure -- really sure -- that Louis is against the
imperialist campaign against the Mugabe regime (whatever its goals) when his
response to those who viscerally react against it is such unadulterated
cop-baiting. This has no place on the list, and I am sure the moderator will
put a firm stop to it.
More information about the Marxism