On Apr 21, 1:45=A0am, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 1:26 am, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> If it is a historical archive not a political organisation classifying
> who is a marxist and who isn't is based on current pre-
> occupations...Let the readers decide from what they say and do what
> they are. The only logical criterion is what they say about themselves
> for if we are to get sectarian over it I would consider Tony Cliff a
> social-democrat due to his views on state capitalism as even Marx once
> noted if those are the views representing marxism then he is no
> marxist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just giving the explanation.
David
|
