I think one has to get real about both the USSR and China. Marxism played a
large role in the revolution that occurred in each. But once the
revolutions were over and the dust had cleared, the economy of both could
best be described as state capitalism. The ideals of Marxism were left
behind in the dust.
The Chinese appear to be more flexible than the Russians were. The latter
were devotees of a planned economy. Everything, down to the last widget,
had to adhere to a series of five year plans. The Chinese are more
flexible. They set the general principles and parameters, but a good deal
of what then happens depends on individual initiative.
I would suggest that Lenin was a Marxist, but not Stalin and most of those
who followed after him. Mao was a Marxist, but not the post Mao leadership.
Ed
Michael Gurstein wrote:
Well calling Stalin a Marxist is a not particularly useful designation.
Probably the more useful question to ask would be whether Marx was a
(possible) Stalinist...
Oh yeah, Marx has nothing to do with the negative outcomes of Marxism...
And of course those who led the USSR in the 4 decades *after* Stalin
were only misinterpreting Marx too! As were those in China.
How dishonest can ideologues get?
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
