Jared Israel (Borba100) wrote:
> The nonaligned
> movement provided a sanctuary for movements that wanted to be politically
> independent of Imperialism without endorsing the Soviet system.
And Mark Jones replied:
>> Anyone who thought that was either a saint, a fool or a charlatan. What was
needed however was something different.
>>
"What was Needed" -- ahh, the saddest words ever uttered: what might have
been. It is of course philosophical idealism to criticize reality for not
providing the proper raw materials.
IF the communist movement had functioned in a reasonable fashion then the
nonaligned movement might not have been a necessary form of struggle for
people who wanted to fight imperialism.
But the communist movement became grotesquely distorted under Stalin's
leadership.
Examples: In 1940 the American communist party UNDER STALIN'S ORDERS
organized "the yanks are not coming clubs." Aside from putting them in the
grotesque position of PROCLAIMING to the world they were merely the parrot of
the tactical shifts in Stalin's foreign policy - aside from that, it made the
antifascist movement my parents helped build look like a phony and in an
instant undercut the entire Left in the U.S. Then when Russia got invaded,
Stalin orderd the American CP to dissolve. It is frankly a miracle the Left
survived at all in this country.
Example: The grotesque destruction of legal norms in Russia. Why did the
construction of socialist society require a legal system that made the West
look good?
Example: The self-parody of "democratic centralism" which in practice meant
that profound discussion was not tolerated. In Russia, it might get you
shot. A leading American Stalinist pointed to a white wall and told me:
"When I say that wall is blue I want you to rush to say BLUE!" People became
communists because of the obvious horrors of class injustice and racism and
they left if they had an ounce of integrity.
I could go on and on but these grotesque self-parodies provided endless
ammunition for those defending the status quo so that a person fighting
"anti-communism" was not merely fighting lies, he or she was also fighting
the truth and thus there was always more than a little that was sect-like
about those that stayed in communist organizations. This of course greatly
multiplied the strength of the Establishment since the hurdle that it placed
in the way of supporting the Left became greater and greater. It also helps
explain why so many individuals in the Soviet bloc leadership have migrated
to being henchmen of the West.
The philosophical problem with Stalin (and it was instilled in the communist
movement) was that he believed external contradiction was primary over
internal. This was expressed, among other ways, in his passion for that moron
Lysenko, who hawked the alchemist baloney that acquired traits could be
inherited. (The result, of course, would be that poor people would pass down
any deficiencies resulting from environment; that is, social class would
translate into ability - a truly fascist theory, but Stalin didn't care, he
loved it because it meant you could create taller corn. And this, although,
of course, acquired traits CANNOT be inherited so he DIDN'T EVEN GET THE
CORN! Typical Stalin. Stalin wiped out those geneticists who dared to try and
tell him the truth...)
Mark says "what was needed however was something different."
It sure was.
Jared
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
