This is a bit unfair as I was trying to be generally complementary. 
Though I am not exactly sure how you can presume on what basis I 
would disagree. I must be SO obvious!  :)

> Including this too?
> >> But the reality is that in this whole century capitalism has been
> >> objectively ripe for  revolution
If by 'whole century' Dave means that throughout the century 
there have been opportunities for revolution then I agree. If he 
meant that at all point in all places revolution was constantly 
busting out then I am not so sure.

Of course, in my view it has been a century of fruiting (to keep the 
metaphor) socialist revolutions. The only problem is that in western 
European countries (especially the failure in Germany following the 
1st Imperialialist War) the ripe fruits have not been harvested and 
has been left to go rotten. But I would blame that of the strenth of 
Eurocentric Menchevism and people (perhaps like you Hugh) who have 
sought to make alliance with reactionary reformist 'socialist' 
parties (such as you outspoken call for a vote for the Labour Party 
because of its supposed 'left-wing' candidate). Or the diversion into 
Labour movement internal battles which - while sometimes being 
progressive - are rarely revolutionary. Reforms should be the 
by-product of the striving for revolution not an end in themselves.

> >> it was the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Trotsky
> >> who developed marxism beyond  Eurocentric menshevism 

> Trotsky too??

Trotsky as the post-Menchevich leader of the Red Army, Minister for 
Foreign Affairs and Politburo member was o.k. as far as I am 
concened, just many others were. But I think that ice-picks can have 
more uses than just breaking ice :) 


     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to