Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/18/00 06:43PM
This is closer to what I believe, Charles. But even so. It is likely that a revolution
that starts anywhere but the US or Western Europe would quickly be bombed to oblivion.
_
CB: Yes, this is part of the Neo-liberal triumph. It is a true
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/14/00 05:59PM
very true. plus Luxemburg..
Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second
Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in
'backward' places.
CB: Also, Lenin predicted the revolution in the "East" would
True, Charles, but surely the important thing for a Marxist is a revolution that leads
to socialism. And there Marx's contention that it
could only occur in an advance capitalist country still holds.
Rod
Charles Brown wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/14/00 05:59PM
very true. plus Luxemburg..
Revolution can "only occur in an advance capitalist country?". Which
Marxists subscribe to this notion besides vulgar orthodoxs nowadays? This
was *not* Marx's contention. Marx's circumstances were entirely different
when he came closer to this idea, but he never explicitly put it.
History
I'd say it more this way, Rod. There is no successful socialism without it eventually
being a world revolution. But that doesn't mean that the world revolution starts
everywhere at the same time.
And directly to your point, and proven by the first efforts to build socialism in the
20th
Rod Hay wrote:
True, Charles, but surely the important thing for a Marxist is a revolution that
leads to socialism.
NO! This is to pretend that we access to a crystal ball. The important
thing for a Marxist is revolution aimed at socialism. Whether it succeeds
in maintaing itself to fit
This is closer to what I believe, Charles. But even so. It is likely that a revolution
that starts anywhere but the US or Western Europe would quickly be bombed to oblivion.
Even in US or Western Europe, it must be a mass democratic upheaval, rather than a
small group coup d'etat.
Rod
I can not think of any revolution that was not a mass democratic
movement, if the meaning of revolution is not conflated with
coup-d'etat, of course!
Mine
it was written:
mass democratic movement rather than a small group coup d'etat.
Charles Brown wrote:
There is no successful socialism
Sam Pawlet:
The alliances were disastrous and it was partly because of
eurocentrism-- socialism wasn't possible in such backward places
independent of European revolution.
I understand your reasoning, but why is it Eurocentric to expect a
socialist revolution world wide? The main reason
very true. plus Luxemburg..
Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second
Interntional-Menshevic claim that socialism couldn't take root in
'backward' places.
Bill Burgess
Please, can we drop this, and move on to something new. We have only a
couple of people involved. And, also, please don't bother with a "this is
my last comment on " because others will answer and then you will
I am not singling out anyone, but just want the thread to drop.
--
very true. plus Luxemburg..
Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second
International-Menshevik claim that socialism couldn't take root in
'backward' places.
Bill Burgess
And on all the evidence, all three of them were wrong, and Martov and
company were right...
No. Western Marxism has been full of Euro-centrism. Two of the greatest
champions and fighters for socialist internationalism and against
imperialism and racism--Lenin and Trotsky-- were Euro-centrists.
In so far as Lenin goes, he was a true internationalist and universalist
socialist. i would
The Comintern supported the national bourgeoise
instead of the indigenous communists.
this is interesting, and I agree with your historical evidences. but one
more point. Turkish Communist Party was a member of the Comintern backed
by Turkish Communists like Mustapha Suphi. the relation between
14 matches
Mail list logo
