====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
First things first. The suffering of the masses in China, since 1978 is not the result of 1920s Comintern policy or the theory of alliance with any section of the colonial bourgeoisie. Or a result of CPC policy under Mao. As previously stated, Mao was correct to change policy in the late 1920s and 1930s. My kind of guy. Deng policy was to open China to finance capital. Period. Connecting Deng in 1978 and Comintern policy is a stretch. The bottom line is that China is better today - right now, having throw out the imperialist. Let me put this in unmistakable terms. A China ruled by Chinese capitalist is better than a China ruled by Western imperialism. In the period in question, in the colonies, the issue is two fold; exploited peoples and exploiting peoples and classes. The over throw of imperialism is the precondition for socialism. The real issue is that the Chinese revolution advanced when the Chinese themselves took matter into their own hands. In 1921 Su Yat Sen approach the Comintern. He was welcomed in because he had an army fighting imperialism. Put it this way: I have worked with all kinds of folks from different classes for the past 40 years. I'm the wrong guy to talk with on the subject of alliances. Plus, I voted for Obama and could care less what some might think. And would do it all over again if the clock could be turned back to 2008. Fortunately, 2008 is gone forever. My personal opinion - expressed on the other list, is that policy change was in order after the death of Sun Yat Sen and 1927. The reason I forwarded the Liu article to two list was because I hold a similar - not identical, view he expressed on the events in question. On the other hand it was correct to take the KMT into the fold of the Comintern. Your expressed opinion is that they should have been regulated to the Peoples of the East committee. Fine. My rationale is that such was correct because revolution at the front of the curve was impossible. As I have previously stated, it was disastrous tying revolutionary policy to the real and perceived geo-political needs of the Soviet state. Policy change was in order. In my opinion this is what accounts for the Comintern policy of that period. ******* >>“Do you mean a 'social' revolution in that it's "Socialist" or a revolution that simply overturns the current political state from feudalistic warlord and colonial dismemberment to a modern democratic one?” << Comment None of the above ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
