Serfs' Emancipation Day for Tibet

mosfeld wrote:

This is absolutely historically incorrect. Parroting the bourgeois line is not "Marxist", and neither is quoting Sam Marcy on "imperialism", considering that his heirs, the WWP and PSL, both support the reactionary Soviet social-imperialist regime from Krushchev up to Gorbachev and it's imperialist actions in the Warsaw Pact, Ethiopia, Angola and Afghanistan.

Kirov wrote:

Economically they were petty-bourgeois or bourgeois considering their incomes and due to this they as individuals had politically a weakened allegiance to the working class, which their revisionism severed completely.

J. V. Stalin wrote:

The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.

Quote:

Proof of this is the PRC's support of the Taliban and UNITA.

Quote:

Doesn't matter. They used the guise of social-imperialism to 'oppose Soviet Imperialism' in Afghanistan and Angola.

Quote:

Fighting on the side of mujahideen is unforgivable.

mosfeld wrote:

There were, for example, Maoists who fought against the Soviet imperialists in Afghanistan, as well.

mosfeld wrote:

It actually does matter, because post-socialist China furthered its own agenda under the guise of "opposing Soviet social-imperialism", just like the Soviet revisionists justified their reactionary, imperialist actions under the guise of "Marxism-Leninism". Just because they say their opposing social-imperialism, doesn't mean they are.

mosfeld wrote:

And siding with the Soviet social-imperialists, when there were uprisings in every single province of Afghanistan against their occupation, is the legitimate "Marxist-Leninist" position?