Post by account_disabled on Mar 4, 2024 5:28:37 GMT -5
Not Only Several Latin Americans in Havana, but Also Several Cuban Officials, in Various Parts of the Country That I Crossed for a Month, Asked Me Bluntly: "Don't You Think the Ussr is Imperialist?" When He Left Cuba, Raúl Castro's Report on the Activities of the "Microfraction" Was Made Public and His Repression Was Reported, as Well as a Ten-hour Speech, Which Remained Secret, by Fidel Castro. Today It is Known, Although Not Entirely. Fidel Castro Took an Ambiguous Position, but Very Negatively Appreciated in Moscow. Movements That Depended on Cuban Support Did the Same or Remained Silent. I Was Impressed by.
Three Positions Taken in Chile. "What is This if Not a Version of the 'johnson Doctrine' for the Socialist Camp?", Asked the Editorial Staff of the Left-wing Chilean Magazine Punto Final in an Editorial . "the Soviet Union is Mainly Responsible for the Discredit of UK Mobile Database Socialism", the Socialist Jaime Faivovich Commented in the Same Magazine. "This Intervention Was Not in Defense of Socialism," Declared the Revolutionary Left Movement ( Mir ), "but in Defense of the Interests of the Bureaucracy of the Ussr .". Also in Chile, the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (Flacso) Published a Lucid Comparative Study of the Soviet Intervention in Czechoslovakia and the Us Dominican Republic in . It Confirmed the Lack of a "Major.
Difference Between the Arguments Soviet and North American Regarding the Political and Strategic Reasons for the Interventions" and It Was Concluded That "the Conduct of the Us and the Ussr in Relation to Their Respective Blocs Does Not Present Substantive Differences"Twenty. In My Eyes, the Task of the Marxist and Internationalist Left Was Already – and in Reality for a Very Long Time – to Raise, Investigate and Elaborate Both Theoretically and Politically the Question of the Imperialist Nature of the Ussr Since the Times of the Counterrevolution. Stalinist. The Discussion, Evidently Very Private, of This Question in Poland Was Not Difficult. Left-wing Polish Critics of Bureaucratic Dictatorships in the Ussr and the Entire Soviet Bloc Reached Agreement on This Purpose So Easily That Nothing Needed to Be Elaborated. The Opposite Happened With the Latin American Left.
Three Positions Taken in Chile. "What is This if Not a Version of the 'johnson Doctrine' for the Socialist Camp?", Asked the Editorial Staff of the Left-wing Chilean Magazine Punto Final in an Editorial . "the Soviet Union is Mainly Responsible for the Discredit of UK Mobile Database Socialism", the Socialist Jaime Faivovich Commented in the Same Magazine. "This Intervention Was Not in Defense of Socialism," Declared the Revolutionary Left Movement ( Mir ), "but in Defense of the Interests of the Bureaucracy of the Ussr .". Also in Chile, the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (Flacso) Published a Lucid Comparative Study of the Soviet Intervention in Czechoslovakia and the Us Dominican Republic in . It Confirmed the Lack of a "Major.
Difference Between the Arguments Soviet and North American Regarding the Political and Strategic Reasons for the Interventions" and It Was Concluded That "the Conduct of the Us and the Ussr in Relation to Their Respective Blocs Does Not Present Substantive Differences"Twenty. In My Eyes, the Task of the Marxist and Internationalist Left Was Already – and in Reality for a Very Long Time – to Raise, Investigate and Elaborate Both Theoretically and Politically the Question of the Imperialist Nature of the Ussr Since the Times of the Counterrevolution. Stalinist. The Discussion, Evidently Very Private, of This Question in Poland Was Not Difficult. Left-wing Polish Critics of Bureaucratic Dictatorships in the Ussr and the Entire Soviet Bloc Reached Agreement on This Purpose So Easily That Nothing Needed to Be Elaborated. The Opposite Happened With the Latin American Left.