From: "Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: The A-List <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [A-List] A Chinese Marxism view: Problems of int'l.
strategyfortoday's China
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:45:01 -0500
Henry, my question about characterizing the SU as imperialist would be that
I don't see where the SU was economically exploiting any colonies. Wasn't
there net values exported to Cuba, for example, not imported ? The SU had
to occupy Eastern Europe because fascism had just been there and through
there on its path to commit the holocaust against the SU. The Soviet
government had a responsibility to its people who had suffered so
horrendously to guarantee no new invasion. The SU didn't set up capitalist
relations of production in colonies. This is a key aspect of the Leninist
definition of imperialism.
So , these are my hesitations in calling the SU imperialist.
I do think the militarization of the SU ,including militarization of the
civilian society in the form of dictatorial system, was critical in the its
fall. This is related to socialist revolution in an economically less
developed nation, that is it has to put such a high portion of its
production into the military, for true self-defense. However, that was
forced on the SU by imperialism. It is the great dilemma we must solve in
the next efforts to win socialism. How do we get around capitalism's
abiliity to force socialism to militarize at "gunpoint" ?
Onward !
Charles