Re: MAL: Gina,s strategic world veiw?

[malecki@xxxxxxxxxx (Robert Malecki)]

Gina wrote:
>
>The point of my bringing up these struggles: Vietnam and Iran (among
>others) is to say that they objectively were struggles against imperialism,
>which objectively shook up the imperialist structure, particularly that of
>the US.  The Vietnamese people DID defeat the US.  The US was not
>able to accomplish any of its aims in keeping domination over that
>country.  The fact that the leadership of the Vietnamese side was not
>proletarian, and could not keep the revolutionary direction going after
>their victory is another aspect ofthe situation.  It does not invalidate
>the fact that it was a defeat for US imperialism.

Yes the Vietnamese struggle was certainly a defeat for imperialism.And as
far as keeping the struggle going What role did China play in these events?
>
>The same with Iran.  It was a popular uprising of the MASSES in Iran
>that sent the Shah scurring around the world looking for a place to
>hide.  He was run out of Panama after that, and died in a hospital in
>the US, the home of his master.  Again, the fact that there was no
>proletarian leadership ready to step in and lead that struggle does not
>diminish the fact that it was a defeat for the US.  They lost a very
>important solid strategic alliance, which they've been trying to rebuild
>ever since, with overtures to the "moderates"among the ruling mullahs.

No it was not the same in Iran. In the first place Iran was never divided or
occupied by imperialism at least not since the second world war. Vietnam did
not have a monarchy. But Iran was a popular upprising. But upprisings do not
determine if they are anti-imperialist or not. It is only the outcome and
how people relate to the events that really count. However i do know that
the left and especially the left in Iran treated Khomeni and the mullahs as
some sort of anti-imperialist dynamic in the struggle. I do not know if your
organisation existed at the time, but if it did i wonder what they were
saying then. Iran is certainly not a blow to imperialism despite all the
rhetoric internationally and especially in the United States. In fact two
times if not more the CIA has used the Mullahs to arm counter revolution in
Latin American countries. And now to supply arms to the bosien muslems. In
fact imperialism can get along just fine with the present leadership. And if
there is any anti-imperialist dynamic in Iran today it would be along the
lines of the crusades and back to fuedal society. Especially for women like
you.Futhermore, if the Iranians can,t deal with the Americans then perhaps
the Japanese or German variant of imperialist partners will do. I mean its
the oil in Iran that creates its dependency on imperialism. Only a workers
revolution in the mideast can be a real blow to imperialism. All else is
just wishful thinking of maoist ideology of "peoples war" and masses this
and masses that. The point is building communist organisations who will lead
the proletariat to power. Not the people,not the masses, but the proletariat.
>
>No, these mullahs are not anti-imperialist except in the weakest sense.
>Their rule has not liberated the nation or the masses.  Still, the US has
>not been able to fully repair the damage to its material interests in the
>region, or to its prestige (remember the 440-day takeover of the embassy
>in Tehran?) that the Iranian revolution inflicted.  It also took some time
>for the Mullahs to consolidate their rule; for several months at least,
>there was no effective central government in Iran, and after that there
>were several prime ministers that were either driven to exile or executed.
>

>
>What this fails to grasp is that the proletariat is an international class.
>The interests of workers in any particular country cannot beseparated from
>the interests of the workers in any and all other countries.  It is exactly
>the
>bourgeoisies that want us to see our interests as having to be "renounced'
>in order to support the masses in the third world.

Yes this is true. But you mix up the proletariat with the masses and the
people. Leninists are not multi-class parties, but the party of the
revolutionary proletariat.
>
>In fact, whenever we support struggles that truly strike blows against
>imperialism, whether by peasants in Mexico or miners in Britain;
>whether it's People's War in Peru or anti-apartheid struggles in
>South Africa, we are supporting our own interests as members of
>the international proletariat.

We support struggles while at the same time we critise struggles because
they disreregard the neccessity of a bolshevik party and the working class
as the vanguard of world revolution. Marx and Lenin are very clear on this
point. The problem here is that the Maoists liquidate the revolutionary
proletarian vanguard as the motor for every revolution in order to make
deals with the enemy of the proletariat. That is what "peoples" and "masses"
mean in concrete reality. It is a maoist smokescreen for renouncing the very
basis of Marx and Lenin...

Warm reghards
malecki



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---