On Apr 20, 3:14 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
When we were set up 10 years ago we voted to put all writings
submitted to us regardless of their politics. Unlike rival, and now
mostly defunct Stalinist archive projects, were against "purging"
anyone. But we did want students of Marxism to know that not
everything that says it's "communist" is necessarily "Marxist". So we
came up with a definition (and a clumsy one IMO) to classify what is a
Marxist and what isn't based on the criteria laid out in our Charter
(available at marx.org/admin/intro).
At the time of the vote, and it was a straight up vote, the majority
voted that Mao, being a Stalinist AND wiping out workers democracy,
shooting Trotskyists, etc, etc could not be classified as a "Marxist"
since Marxism stood for the opposite of what Mao advocated and *did*.
I was with the majority on this, and Vngelis comrade was in the
minority, along with the previous mentioned Andy Blunden. I think
there were about 13 of us at the time. So we continued to classify
writings like this until last year.
Castro has never been classified one way or another but we have his
writings listed ONLY (I think) in the Cuban History section as they
were extremely germain to the subject of the Cuban Missile crisis and
the early days of the Cuban Revolution. He is one of only 2 or 3
living leftists on the main section of the MIA (there are living
Marxists in the ETOL but that's another story).
Tito I think was voted "NOT" a Marxist. At any rate, we are moving
away from this sort of binary classification system and just listing
everyone in our Library section.
> [Did you all piss off the Chinese Stalinists, not by the content of
> your do***ents but by your classification of Mao as non-Marxist? Just
> a thought.]
Probably!! But then since the current *direction* in China financially
and culturally, and even ideologically is *for capitalism* (regardless
of what one thinks of the existing social system) most of us think it
was our *Marxism* that they objected to, not the slight at Mao. But
could be!
> 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.
Yeah, well, he (Stalin) isn't.
> 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.
Not me. At least not that way. I think he was im****tant *too* Marxism
but not because he was one. And, if you want, we can debate this. At
any rate, the classification is more by current and time-wise now than
anything.
> What's funny is that, David's remarks notwithstanding, Mao is not
> included *as* a Marxist.
Well, you *state* I think he was a Marxist but didn't actually quote
me saying it. I used to drink very hearty Rhone wine when I
polemicized here and so maybe I stated he was the second coming of
Marx. But probably not. I only stopped drinking about a year ago for
health reasons. Interesting.
The classification system was the most divisive aspect of the MIA
almost tearing the MIA apart on more than one occasion.
David
|
