As China is under discussion -- what could possibly be the
justification for classifying Mao as a "reference" source, while
classifying Castro and Tito as "Marxists"? Very strange -- and a bit
supect, since of these Stalinist politicians, Mao is the most reviled
by bourgeois intellectuals.
[Did you all piss off the Chinese Stalinists, not by the content of
your documents but by your classification of Mao as non-Marxist? Just
a thought.]
To anticipate sources of confusion--I understand that Stalin should be
included among Marxists, because at least one of his works is canon.
But Tito was never anything but a Stalinist, and Castro was even
further from Marxism before becoming a Stalinist.
There's a funny discussion somewhere between David Walters and some
1st or 3rd campist in which David says that Mao's work is a major
current in 20th century Marxism and obviously deserves inclusion.
What's funny is that, David's remarks notwithstanding, Mao is not
included *as* a Marxist.
srd
|
