In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>This is politically naive. It deliberately appears to ignore the actual
>balance of power. Instead it distributes moral reproofs on the basis of
>miraculously discovering most regimes are capitalist.
It is something of a cheek for Chris to accuse others of naivety. As
George stated, this is an inter-capitalist (and I would add inter-
imperialist) rivalry. I saw no moral reproofs in George's' argument, but
rather a factual description of the situation. This is to be contrasted
with the dreadful moralising which purports to see contradictory
advantages in supporting one imperialist power over the other, in the
slaughter of workers for which there can be no possible material
advantage for the working class.
>What has this to so with marxism?
A good question. I suggest it has nothing to do with the realpolitik
which Chris espouses. On any meaningful understanding of the term,
Marxism must put working class interests first. Not as passive players
who are the unintended beneficiaries of imperialist power struggles. But
rather as agents who make history in their own interests. If the workers
cannot emancipate themselves, then nobody else can do it for them.
Marxism begins and ends with the working class.
--
Lew
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
