Lou says:
>Furuhashi:
>>Brenner can't be in support of both stagism & "socialism from below"
>>at the same time.
>
>What on earth are you talking about? Brenner was connected with the
>Analytical Marxist current before it gave up the ghost. These people, G.A.
>Cohen et al, are Second Internationalists in cap and gown. And why can't he
>be for "socialism from below"? This is such an amorphous idea that any
>leftist would be able to endorse it. It is our version of "family values".
Folks who speak of "socialism from below" (in reaction against the CP
tradition, democratic centralism, etc.) aren't among Second
Internationalists.
> >Moreover, support of left nationalisms like
>>Peronism tends to contradict "socialist revolution right now," though
>>your posts suggest you favor both.
>
>I support Peron against Anglo-American imperialism. This is common Marxist
>practice. I learned this in the Trotskyist movement. I can refer you to
>some of the literature, specifically Trotsky's defense of Haile Selassie
>against Mussolini as an extreme example. For that matter, the Comintern
>supported the Kuomintang in the early 1920s. The difference between Trotsky
>and Stalin was over whether the CP should have retained a separate
>identity, with its own newspaper, etc. The debate was not over whether the
>KMT should have been backed in a fight for national independence.
Isn't it "stagist" to support left nationalisms, unless left
nationalisms are thought of as ends in themselves? Left nationalisms
must be "stages" (from which the masses can move forward) for
socialists who support them.
> >Our problem, in any case, is that none of the above -- stagism,
>>"socialist revolution right now," "socialism from below," & left
>>nationalism -- is popular today.
>
>I don't care about being popular. In high school I read James Joyce while
>everybody else preferred Grace Metalious.
By being popular, I mean being embraced by sizable masses of people.
Without widespread support, none of the above can get going.
Yoshie
