>
>shag] Because I'm busy getting all my crap ready to sell in a yard sale
>or give away, I didn't have time to surf around and learn more. I
>vaguely recall this phrase from feminist reading but don't recall
>context or meaning. Google yields stuff about Russia as the primary
>contradiction, as well as some ref about Japan being the primary
>contradiction for China.
>
>What does the phrase mean? Or, probably more importantly, what did iit
>mean then.
>
>Oh wow! You are deep into the Theory of the Three Worlds and this is
>where the China-line groups (more accurate than "Maoist Groups) did go
>off the deep end. I'm not sure either you or I really want to go there
>but I'll maunder on a bit. (I have not the slightest idea what Dohrn and
>*Co. were thinking on this by 1976, but what follows gives the "Chinese
>Line," followed faithfully for awhile at least by New-Communist groups
>who allied with China. The theory was a projection on to the world stage
>of the strategy of the Chinese Revolution - surrounding the Cities from
>the Countryside, and forming a United Front with all who could be
>united against the Japanaese invasion (i.e., with the Nationalists).
>During that earlier period the primary contradiction was with
>Imperaialism as represented by Japan. Projected on the world stage w e
>get the following lunacy (which I sort of accepted at the time, with
>some qualms). For the countryside, substitute the countries of the
>"Third World." For Japan/Germany substitute "Social Fascism" - that is,
>the Soviet Union. For Chiang's nationali8sts with whom it is necessary
>to unite against the Social fascists, substitute the United States. If
>your web sources are confusing, probably you should blame the Mao's
>Theory of the Three Worlds which was pretty confusing to begin with.
>Anyhow, until the USSR is defeated by a world United *Front, that is the
>primary contradiction, and the contradiction between the third world and
>imperailism (the u.s.) is seconday. (I forget where the contradiction
>between the working class and capitalism came in.) But we are post-60s
>now, and all this throws some retrospective light on the '60s but is not
>directly relevant.
thanks very much for these great responses. I will engage with them a little more as I'm kinda busy. This helps quite a bit. What you recount above does help a little. Of course, really understanding what "the primary contradiction" was at the time(s) seems unecess. to getting the basic gist of this book. But it's one of those things you read and wonder, what does it mean?
>shag: One thing too: maybe he's just trying to write from the WUO
>perspective, so they've maybe got some stake in not associating
>themselves with Maoism so much? don't know.
>
>Cox: I don't know. I do know that the only account of Weather from a
>former Weatherman that did not seem entirely self-serving to me was tha
>by Mark Rudd, as published in Radical History Review a few years ago. I
>was pissed off at Dohrn 40 years ago and I'm a bit pissed off at her
>still. She did a lot of damage to people then, and she seems entirely
>unapologetic for it now. Having said that, I still reject the idea that
>we can "learn from mistakes of the past." Those mistakes, when they face
>us again, will be in entirely different circumstances and in quite
>different 'dress,' and most self-labelled "criticism" of them is merely
>self-important puffery. We can, if we study closely, and abstract
>carefully, learn from what the past did RIGHT. Perhaps there is a
>parallel here to Tolstoi on good and bad marriages.
>
>Carrol
yeah. Right now, the author is mostly trying to give an account of what happened. He's occasionally judgmental about it, and certainly brings in various statements of regret expressed by Weather today. The way the book is structured, he's apparently going to evaluate in the last third of the book. I haven't got that far.
Of course, plenty has been said about the machismo.
But still, I'm kind of pissed off, at no one in particuar, but at what has been obscured by the bile generally spilled whenever Weather is mentioned. It's unenlightening. It has meant that I immediately paid no attention to them because people I respect write them off.
Again, this is no criticism of you since your comments are always grounded in actual experience with them...
But anyway, I'm kind of irked because, holy shit!, the principle behind what Weather was up to? The reasons why they were doing what they were doing? That this is largely obscured by the bile -- this has pissed me off. This is important shit to know. Aside from the typical things that exercise people about Weather with which I probably agree, but like you am disinclined to get terribly exercised about for the reasons you say above, I just can't see one fucking reason why these people should be derided so. The principles behind what they were doing -- I can't fathom why anyone should argue with them.
If the idea was to take the heat off black liberation struggles in the u.s. and abroad by forcing the state to expend energy on a bunch of white people, hunting them down, beating them in the streets, etc etc instead of hunting and beating The Panthers, then what was wrong with that?
I mean, even the feminist flank of the group, when they finally decided to get their shit together, they bombed the San Francisco HEW office in 1973. Leaving aside the question of violence and other bullshittery, here is a group that, in 19fucking73 saw feminism as the need to beat back the patriarchy" (and I use that term smirkily) in the form of the social control efforts of the Health, Education, and Welfare department. Because, shockingly, they felt that women's liberation required decent schools, healthcare, food, and childcare and that women of color were especially hard hit by government social control efforts.
anyway, I've not got time to rant or flesh any of this out. But, like I said, it kind of irks me that there is this knee jerk need among some leftists to immediately denounce Weather in ways that obscure so much of the politics behind what it did.
shag