On 19 févr. 11, at 02:12, Louis Proyect wrote: > On 2/18/2011 11:54 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: >> Actually, there is not much of a "versus" from the standpoint of >> Marxism. This should be a good reminder that a state owned sector >> is in and of itself progressive. > > Meant to say: This should be a good reminder that a state owned > sector is *not* in and of itself progressive.
But in this case, it is not so much a "state owned sector" than an "army owned sector", with the explicit purpose (at least from my understanding) to get all the army recruits to work, back in the 50'~60' when they were not needed anymore on the battle field ? If that is correct, I wonder if what we saw in Egypt was not just a part of the army agreeing with the workers because they were not benefitting anymore from their special status. Didn't we just see a bourgeois revolution where the bourgeoisie was naturally in possession of the weapons and got its legitimation from the street? Jean-Christophe Helary _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
