Re: Young Liberal Fascist (XII)

[SHAWGI TELL <v600a8e6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Mark Lockett wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 1996 Godenas@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > This is true of his assertion that Stalin made
> > important theoretical contributions to revolutionary marxist thought.  For
> > nearly thirty years, and for literally hundreds of millions of people, the
> > writings of Stalin were their first and, in many cases, most impressionable
> > introdction to Marxism-Leninism.
>
>
> I think that answer one of the most often asked questions on the left of
> recent years - Why has the world communist movement gone down the toilet
> in the last few years?
> >
> Mark Lockett
> mlockett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pd.uwa.edu.au/Physics/Undergrads/Mark_Lockett/

First, from what I understand and know, the world Communist movement has
not "gone down the toilet."  There are many many Communist parties on
this planet making progress. I do know that imperialism, though, IS
sending millions and millions down the toilet very rapidly.  There is
ample data to demonstrate the extent of the economic terrorism waged by
imperialist countries, the countries that have bombed Latin America, the
Middle East and particularly Africa, back 100 years.  Communism never did
anything of this sort.

To find answers to questions such as why, say, the USSR "collapsed," it
is instructive, I think, to understand the role and significance of
class-collaborators such as Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
These mafia-connected agents of capitalist restoration facilitated the
internal anti-Communist trend in the former USSR.  Accordingly, they
adversely affected many pro-Communist trends on the face of the earth.

Lenin and Stalin were responsible for greatly developing the Soviet
Union.  What took Stalin about 20 years to develop, took the
above-mentioned class-collaborators about twice as long, with the aid of
ultra-reactionary bourgeois imperialists, to dismantle.

There are many sources that detail how progressive the Soviet Union was in
relation to most other countries combined.  As is well known, while most
of the world suffered the effects of the 1930s depression, the Soviet Union
soared and burgeoned forward.

Has Communism declined?  Have progressive forces diminished?  Have
anti-imperialist efforts disappeared?  In my view, the answer to all
these questions is no.  As imperialism spreads and grows more and more
reactionary, as imperialism becomes more and more parasitic, people will
necessarily engage in resistance.  This, in my opinion, is a historical and
dialectical necessity.  Incidentally, genuine socialist countries have
never had and cannot have imperialist aspirations.  Only capitalist
countries can aspire to imperialist status.  Thus, prior to 1953, the
Soviet Union necessarily adopted an anti-imperialist stance.  After 1953
they adopted a social-imperialist stance.  That is, they were socialists
in words and speech and imperialists in deeds and actions.  This fact
alone helps us to better understand the precise nature of military build-up
efforts in imperialist countries.

Out of time for the moment.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
V600A8E6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------