-----Original Message----- From: Dennis <dperrin13 at mediaone.net>
I suppose that if I should happen to write something here mentioning spaghetti, I can expect a pro forma response from Dennis along the lines of, "Interesting that spaghetti was brought by Marco Polo to Italy from CHINA, whose VILE REGIME YOU SUPPORT." Similarly, into this discussion of the war in Afghanistan, Dennis interjects the following:
>Well, wouldn't your example fit China's rulers, who (correct me if I'm
>wrong) your "party" supports?
We do indeed support the government of China -against- US imperialism and against bourgeois counterrevolution of the sort that we saw in the USSR in 1991. That doesn't mean that we support everything it does. If you want to take issue with us, and support US imperialism and/or bourgeois counterrevolution against the government of China, and you believe this is consistent with your "anarchist" principles (one set of scare quotes deserves another), that's your affair.
>I mean, didn't the Chinese invade Tibet in
>order to overthrow what they saw as a theocracy?
No. Although it actually WAS a feudal theocracy, or do you doubt the existence of serfdom in pre-1958 Tibet? But in fact the precipitating incident was the opening of hostilities by a CIA-trained military force. If you believe it is consistent with your anarchist principles to support a CIA-trained military force and/or theocratic feudalism against a socialist government, that is also your affair.
>Haven't they, as "nobles,"
>been quite rough on those who wish for some political/religious breathing
>room?
They have been. In fact, we wrote a whole series of articles on "The Suppression of the Left" in China in the 1970's, which we later published as a pamphlet. When they are rough on the left, the poor, the workers, we do not support it. When they are rough on counterrevolution, we do support it against the lying "freedom" propaganda of the US.
>Aren't they assisting global capital by allowing sweatshops to operate
>under their rule?
They are. But global capital would like the Chinese government to "assist" them still further, by disbanding itself, and giving place to "freedom" for global capital to establish its own dictatorship, exploit without limit, pillage without mercy, loot without restraint.
>In this sense, I agree with you: I'm "repelled by this
>society." Are you?
My feelings are mixed. When I see the inequality, the apologetics for capitalism, the bureaucracy, and the many shortcomings of this society of over 1 billion people, I am indeed by turns repelled and saddened and frustrated and gravely anxious. On the other hand, I am buoyed and heartened when I think about the distance that China has come toward development, literacy, and prosperity since the revolution of 1949 liberated it from feudalism and from imperialist domination. It has been a mammoth undertaking. If that revolution had never taken place, if the Chinese Communist Party had never taken power through civil war and held onto it, the people of China today would be a hundred times worse off. And if in some future crisis they are unable to hold off the bourgeois political offensive, it will be a vast catastrophe.
The fact that I have attempted to give a civil response to Dennis's questions here does not mean that I feel obliged to do so whenever he chooses to fire off a round in my direction. However, for the record, the fact that Dennis and I have serious disagreements on the issue of China doesn't mean that I feel we can't do productive joint work on other issues, such as opposition to the war.
Lou Paulsen member, WWP, Chicago