Re: Not fade away-Neocon socialism

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 9/22/03 9:35:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


I am not recommending this as a policy for
Cuba by any means, I am just making a general theoretical point. I say these
things also for two other reasons (1) because the more stupid communist
dilettantes still ranting on about "the defence of the USSR" without having a 
clue
about what it means, distort the issues in the guise of polemics about
red-baiting, and (2) the argument against imperialist liberation through "regime
change" must focus on the moral core of the imperialist argument, and if you 
talk
idiocy about the USSR you don't score any points against Condoleeza.

Jurriaan


Reply

Still hurt and emotional over events in the Soviet Union half a century ago.
Write a book about it; it might relieve you of your pain.

I am very sure the people of Cuba, the Cuban government and their party is
very interested in your recommendation about what they should do, including your
stated ideas about socialist leading capitalist revolutions in the less
developed country. (There is no need to quote you because it is historically
retrievable. It was on this basis that I dubbed you a neocon socialist. I should
have stated a "crybaby necon-socialist, because you run to the moderator and 
send
personal notes to those who disagree with your strange logic and obsession
with sex. Remember your article declaring that selling sex for $10 in Detroit -
giving head for money, is a form of primitive accumulation of capital and
attributing this to your further development of Karl Marx critique? There is of
course your writing on capitalism and sperm. Sex in Detroit and death under
Stalin's Soviet Union. What a connection.

My experience, which is substantial -- but your is of course superior, is
that I have never organized anyone on any basis other than doing what they are
already doing. The core of the argument in America is always reshaped and
articulated by that section of the working class in motion and one must be 
there to
know the argument and how it is expressed. Condoleezza is immaterial to how
the argument is shaped - at least at the phase of the social struggle.

The issues in the American Union have never really been the Soviet Union,
Stalin, and Trotsky, the character of the Soviet State, the qualitative or
quantitative dimensions of their industrialization or the cost in human life.
Rather, the issue for the most forward moving section of the proletariat in 
America
has been the cost of human life as lived, conceived and currently experienced
by this sector. There are stories to be written about the human cost of world
industrialization by the slave and their descendants. Every generation these
stories are written anew. Aspects of this rewriting takes place on Marxline and
my simple contributions to this is my moral duty to explain what happened in
the social movement and why and how this is related to our historical
progression.

For reasons of the historical evolution of the American Union, what is dubbed
the national or national and colonial question has loomed large and at the
center of the social struggle since the Civil War. The leaders of the practical
movement within our working class, generated on the basis of the last and
current upsurge in progress - witness Benton Harbor, are circumspect in our
assessment of the worlds people, military campaigns, and how another country
organizes its internal life. On the other hand articles like the "Genesis of the
Peculiar Phenomenon of the Black Leader" clarifies the history of the American
Union as political logic and the structure of power that allowed a man like
George W to pull of his coup.

But then you are more wise, thoughtful and knowledgeable about such affairs
having lead military campaigns and been charged with organizing an economy.
What puzzles me is why you advocate socialist - thank God I am a communist, 
carry
out capitalist - bourgeois revolutions, in today's world. But then again
neocon socialist are capable of anything. In my way of thinking a person
advocating bourgeois revolution in 2003 - led by socialist, cannot be very 
politically
astute.

Melvin P.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.