[Marxism] Proletarians, peasants, and polemics

new wave new.wave.nw at gmail.com
Mon Mar 23 04:43:20 MDT 2009


On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM, <Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:

> >> right and what all that pretentious  analysis does is negate and
> trivialize the great social upheaval of the Chinese  Revolution reducing it
> to the
> machinations of political hacks in Moscow.   What utter bullshit.  Of
> course, you
> never get any social analysis of China  or any expose of the crimes of the
> Kuomintang and the Japanese  imperialists.  Rather what we have here is
> again is
> yet another example of  pretentious academic "expert" knowledge that is
> either
> completely oblivious to  the real history of the epochal Chinese
> revolution,
> or which consciously seeks  to cover that up, people whose utter rightism
> is
> couched in what Mao called  "Book Worship" as if the great social upheaval
> of
> the Chinese revolution was a  bureaucratic or "communist takeover" and not
> a
> genuine social revolution of the  masses of the most epochal sort, like
> what
> began in France in 1789 or in Russia  in 1917.<<
>
> Comment
>
> My sentiment exactly.
>
> There is something grievously wrong with folks who speak of history making
> leaders in degrading terms. Mao will remain one of the premier leaders and
> most
>  influential individuals of the 20th century. Across the broad the Chinese
> Revolution is the  second most important political event of the 20th
>  century.
> One would think the Chinese Revolution did not win. The CCP, under the
> leadership of Mao summed up their attitude towards the Comintern and the
> Stalin
> regime (Moscow) long ago: 80% great and 20% in error, if memory serves me
> correct. Anyone outside of China and the period in question 1925-1927, who
> have  the
> audacity to contend their personal vision and understanding of China, its
> leaders and people and the course its revolution is better  understand by
> them,
> than the Chinese themselves is probably suffering from  intense egoism. And
> silliness.
>
> All this penning away about "bureaucratic this" and "bureaucratic that" is
> simply thin ideology and cannot stand up to any investigation. The moment
> the
> question is asked to define the bureaucracy, as a historical artifact, its
> history and the basis of its demise, the ideologist disappear.
>
> These old ideological squabbles are pretty worthless, unless one has new
> light to shine on the subject.
>
>
> WL
> **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10
> or
> less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/new.wave.nw%40gmail.com
>



-- 
New Wave
new-wave-nw.blogspot.com



More information about the Marxism mailing list