David Shemano I understand the position that just because what comes after the revolution could be worse than the pre-revolution status quo does not mean you should never engage in revolution. But that does not answer my question, which is what is your evidence that the revolution can result in "democratically organized constituent assemblies." Is there historical evidence that convinces you it can occur? For example, the Paris Commune? Or are you limited to the theoretical possibility, like there is theoretical possibility that Angelina Jolie might leave Brad Pitt for me?
--------- You write as though a "revolution" is something you abstractly choose, like deciding between brands of baked beans in a supermarket. A revolution is an ongoing action; no one _chooses_; there is no sharp line between a mass popular movement for specific changes and an insurrection, which in turn may or may not develop into a revolution, which is also a continuing action or process. And as Tom notes, that process may or may not generate a 'structure.' Since a revolution is not a brand of beans, arguing about its nature in advance is sort of an empty exercise. (I would agree with Lou on Nicaragua, but that tells us little or nothing about the future.) I agree with the implications of Luxemburg's "socialism or barbarism"; namely, that we can't really predict which will be the outcome. What is barbarism? Read the history of the 20th-century. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
