>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/05/00 12:09PM >>>
>>> "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/05
5:18 PM >>>
without the Russian Revolution and its incident revolutions
( China, explosion of national liberation revolutions in
colonies after WWII) , Marxism has not changed the world,
begins to become suspected of scholasticism, i.e. nice
sounding words, that don't work in practice. We would
probably not even be talking about Marx, if it had not been
for Leninism and the Russian Revolution. He would be an
obscure, crackpot, oddball.
Charles, this is an interesting 'what if' speculation. I
wonder whether we would have been better or worse off.
Marxism would not be as discredited as it is, but I must say
I doubt that it would have been unknown.
((((((((((((
CB: Well, not entirely unknown, but a lot less famous. Max Weber is known, but hardly
much outside of academe. Lets say Marxism would be largely confined to academe.
((((((((((
But these sorts of
speculations can become a scholasticism of their own, can't
they?
((((((((((((((
CB: Yes, if you focus on just my last statement, a historical counterfactual, the
discussion will tend to become scholastic or abstract, because it is a historical
counterfactual, which cannot be ultimately tested by practice.
That last sentence about Marx being obscure is not my main point. My main point is
without the Russian Revolution, Marx's theory has changed the world very little; and
therefore it starts to become taxed by one of Marx's own main principles.
(((((((
One could say that having gone through the leninist
experiment, we are the better off because we now know its
likely limitations, which have shown themselves more than
once, as you imply.
((((((((((
CB: Yes, this is a point at which we can begin to agree. Trial and error is central to
the scientific process, so at least by trying , the Leninists have given us something
empirical and practical to learn from mistakes on.
((((((((((((
The 'national liberation revolutions'
that you refer to, of course do not derive from Marx at all
- they are cast in a quasi-marxist terminology by Lenin and
then removed even further from Marx than that by other
nationalist ideological elaborators. I don't know whether
you would, for example, refer to the South African
experience as such a revolution, but I can assure you that
there's nothing much going on here that can credibly be
attributed to Marx. It is wholly to the discredit of Lenin,
however, that current developments here CAN be defended on
leninist grounds, and this leninist quasi-marxism (for
example of the SACP) does just that all the time. I couldn't
imagine an ideological orientation that does less to address
the concerns of this list.
(((((((((((((
CB: You underestimate the revolutionary significance of overthrowing apartheid even if
the ANC and SACP have not forged on to socialist revolution immediately as the
Russians did in October after Februrary in 1917. The U.S. Civil War's ending slavery
was revolutionary, even though it did not end capitalism.
How about the Viet Namese revolution ? The Cuban ? National
liberation-revolutionary-Marxist enough for you ?
On national liberation movements not deriving from Marx at all, think of the fact that
Engels and Marx's most famous slogan is "Workers of the WORLD, Unite ! " . Lenin's
extension of that to "Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World, Unite !" builds
consistently on the principle of the original.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
