********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.

> On 8/8/18 9:27 PM, DW via Marxism wrote:
> > Leaving that aside is if it's applied to Nicaragua, this means...what
> > exactly? Not seizing power? Limiting, even against the wishes of the
> rural
> > masses and urban workers further nationalizations? What would be the
> point
> > then of the FSLN coming to power if only to topple the hated
> dictatorship?
> > In fact, the self-limitations imposed by the FSLN worked out well, huh?
> > Plus, Louis, you make it out to seem as if nothing else was going on the
> > region...like El Salvador, Guatemala, etc. I am not arguing had, as A.
> > Sandino suggested..."only the workers and peasants can go all the way"
> > ...that the results wouldn't of been any different. Though we never would
> > know had they, the FSLN, lead the masses to just that, that an even
> deeper
> > radicalization would not have shifted the entirety of Central America
> > working masses to consider socialist solutions. Revolutions happen when
> > it's least expected, afterall.

Maybe it’s not worth responding to, but I found myself scratching my head
and wondering what David is talking about here. Yeah no joke there was
stuff going on in the rest of Central America. The Guatemalan revolution
was busy having its head handed to it on a silver platter and that would
not have changed irregardless of Sandinista policy. The FMLN certainly did
not need revolutionary encouragement from the Sandinistas as they were for
the most part very interested in going down a Socialist path, but alas they
could only fight the largest military power in the planet to a bloody
standstill. Guess they had not read their Trotsky, otherwise they would
have prevailed? Or what exactly?

And speaking of the rest of Central America, let us not forget that
Honduras and Costa Rica were contra staging grounds.

Yeah the balance of forces was so in favor of revolutionary upheaval that a
slight nod from a more revolutionary leadership in Managua would have
certainly resulted in a massive social explosion and the incorporation of
the entire isthmus into a revolutionary project.


Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 

Reply via email to