>Ricardo:
>
>There would be truth to this if such repressive measures were limited
>to a civil war situation. But the real problem lies in the very
>nature of the Bolshevik party and the notion that an elite of
>`professional revolutionaries' can best decide what is the best for
>everyone else. Democracy within that elite is no democracy at all;
>which is why the Bolsheviks had no qualms liquidating the
>Constituent Assembly in October 1917. Such an act led to the complete
>monopolization of power by the Bolsheviks; on the basis of which
>Stalin was able later to carry his `revolution from above'.
>
>This is only trivial to dogmatic Marxists, who have a tendency
>to belittle any notion of constitutional rights, particulary when it
>does not apply to them.
>
One of the things that continues to amaze me is how people can summarize
such complex events in a paragraph. Not only does Duchesne make the
problematic link between Lenin and Stalin, he also throws the word
'democracy' around without defining it. I have no idea what he thinks that
democracy is. "Constitutional rights", as Ellen Meiksins Wood, points out
in her recent study "Capitalism Against Democracy" is tied up with the
evolution of a specific form of class rule. The Magna Carta, the American
Constitution, etc. are best understood as mechanisms for limiting
democracy. The purpose of representative democracy is to block genuine
decision-making by the working class.
I have no intention of answering your distortion of what happened to the
Constituent Assembly. This would require research into Isaac Deutscher and
E.H. Carr and some thorough analysis. It would be wasted on somebody like
you who prefers simplistic opinion-making stripped of historical context. I
stumbled across your name in a back issue of Science and Society. Do you
have more rigorous standards for your submissions to scholarly journals?
Let's hope so.
>
>Ricardo:
>
>Yes, if "it was up to you"; if only YOU could have it your way;
>you, a particular INDIVIDUAL, would have no political hesitations
>dealing with your opponents, you would be a `real' man. Well,
>sorry to tell you, but this male-centered, individualist conception of
>politics is outdated.
>
You forgot to include "white" and "heterosexual." If you are going to throw
around epithets like this, you might as well do it 100%. The proper retort
is white, heterosexual and male if you want to throw doubt on the integrity
of your ideological opponent. Although I'd have to say that with the way my
social life has been going recently, "heterosexual" is sort of an abstraction.
Louis Proyect
