John Woodford wrote: > > This is quite interesting, to be sure. But it makes me wonder if > the thrust of > it is that Lenin should have written an analysis called "Nothing > Can Be Done" > rather than "What Is To Be Done?" It leaves open the question of what Lenin might have done if he'd understood the nature of his predicament (actually I think Brucan underestimates Lenin; I think it is clear that Lenin had no doubts about the fate of 'socialism in one country'). There were other alternatives. The value of what Brucan is saying (I think) is not in terms of his judgment about Lenin, but in the judgment that the USSR was always only a subset (enclave) of the capitalist world-system, and this is why the history of the USSR has lots of lessons about what to do and not to do (politically) but doesn't tell us much *systemically*. There never has been socialism; there has only ever been capitalism, and resistance to it. In a strong sense, there is a continuity in the history of resistance, from friendly societies and cooperatives, to trade unions and socialist parties, to national-liberation struggles and 'actually-existing socialism'. What they all have in common is that they were all moments of struggle that were recuperated to the historical horizons of capital; we have never seen and have no knowledge [yet] of any truly autonomous alternative to capitalism. Mark _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
