Doyle:
> One system, not one nation at a time.
How about this: One system, many nations or, better said, countries, at a time?
Should a country or a number of countries wait until all others are ready to
join?
> What unifies to action? I think it reasonable to ask that question if a
crisis looms before us.
As reasonable as this question may be, I am quite pessimistic in this regard,
too. We went back to the early the 19 century, debating the same questions that
had been debated then. I don't think the collective state of mind we are in
lends itself to any sort of unified action. We are divided to the bone.
One thing I am somewhat happy about is that at least now the East does not feel
as inferior to the West as it did then, possibly because the Western dominance
is decaying. The other day I looked at a book that has been sitting in my
personal library untouched for quite some time: "The Russian Revolution" by
Leon Trotsky (translated by Max Eastman) and saw this, written by Trotsky:
"Since the greatest enigma is the fact that a BACKWARD (my emphasis) country
was the first to place the proletariat in power, it behooves us to seek the
solution to that enigma in the peculiarities of that BACWARD (my emphasis)
country - that is, in its differences from other countries."
Why is this an enigma? Further, what does it mean that Russia was BACKWARD
then? In what sense?
If Trotsky was feeling this inferior to the Western Capitalism of his time,
should we feel angry at others who felt even more inferior?
Unfortunately, I did and this was the main reason why I ended up insulting
Mustafa Kemal, whatever that means, with no regrets, by the way.
One system, many countries, but not necessarily all countries, at a time.
Best,
Sabri
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
