Andrew, there is a big difference between an analysis of the Chinese revolution and what Mao and the Red Army accomplished, the radical transformation of the countryside (see the book by Zhun Xu on the dismantling of the communes), and so forth and the foolishness of the Maoist groups in the US. Monthly Review never associated itself with any of them, ever. Mao's ideas of autonomous development were correct, in my view. And even the Cultural Revolution was not viewed completely negatively, even by some of those worst affected by it. In any event, MR has changed its views on China several times, based mainly on changing factual circumstances. To put MR and its editors on a par with the groups Young is talking about is a bit offensive. It is easy to criticize in hindsight, but it is a lot harder to try to put matters in historical context. I can assure you of one thing. Ethan Young is utterly incapable of doing this.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#8892): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/8892 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/83214196/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
