Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > On 12/1/06, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > > > Stan quoted Joaquin: > > > > > > <blockquote>My friend goes on to say: > > > > > > "Building a socialist movement for the 21st Century means starting > > > from the premise, and very palpable reality, that the socialist > > > movement of the second half of 20th Century, viewed as a whole, > > > largely DID NOT WORK. And it especially did not work in the places > > > where Marxist theory says it was SUPPOSED to work, in the advanced > > > capitalist countries with a fully-developed working class that is the > > > big majority of the population."</blockquote> > > > > > > It is about time to think about why Marxism "did not work in the > > > places where Marxist theory says it was SUPPOSED to work."
(Preliminary: No one in this bundle of threads is or should be referring to the various marxist-leninist sects; except for some skills in parade permits they have no significanct presence on the left. The CPUSA, unfortunately, does, but its presence is mostly devoted to steering the left towards the embrace of the DP, and that is a quite different issue.) I have argued with Joaquin on this on the marxism list. One cannot claim that a given procedure failed without first demonstrating that "success" was possible under the given conditions. As far as I can tell leftists in the u.s have _not_ failed. Evidence pointing to failure is grounded in a terribly wrong assessment of the _possibilities_ for left achievement in the last 35 or 55 years. Those possibilities were close to nil. We can learn from the limited achievements of leftists over the pass half-century, but their failures are trivial, being such failures as _no_ possible leftist approach could have changed. Metaphorically, in water barely above freezing, failure on the part of a swimmer to remain afloat indefinitely is hardly ascribable to her selection of swimming styles. If Joaquin _is_ focusing on the "organized marxist left," then he is not talking about anything of much empirical or theoretical interest. Carrol
