Lou:
>Yoshie Furuhashi:
>>Folks who speak of "socialism from below" (in reaction against the CP
>>tradition, democratic centralism, etc.) aren't among Second
>>Internationalists.
>
>Why not? This is the slogan of the magazine Against the Current, which
>includes Sam Farber as editor and frequent contributor. If there is some
>kind of difference between him and the garden variety DSA leader, I am at a
>loss to identify it.
Whatever differences & similarities exist between Solidarity & DSA, I
doubt that they revolve around the positions taken by each group's
members on the "forces of production versus relations of production"
debate.
> >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.
>
>No, not at all. Let me try to explain the difference. The Bolsheviks
>participated in the overthrow of the Czar and gave tacit support to
>Kerensky in April 1917. From that point on they kept a watchful eye on the
>government and as soon as it faltered on the promise of land reform and
>ending its role in WWI, they went on the offensive. A "stagist" current in
>Russia was expressed by Plekhanov who believed that it was necessary to
>support Kerensky despite the broken promises, since a capitalist phase was
>necessary to prepare the country for socialism. Got it?
Whether a capitalist phase is necessary to prepare the country for
socialism doesn't seem like a burning debate anywhere now (perhaps
except in China, between the current CP leadership and various left
oppositions to them). Aren't nearly all nations capitalist now, with
partial exceptions of Cuba & North Korea?
> >By being popular, I mean being embraced by sizable masses of people.
>>Without widespread support, none of the above can get going.
>
>Can you provide a footnote for that?
Socialism might become a footnote of history, unless socialists go
easy on sectarianism.
Yoshie
