Mine,
The monarchy had already been overthrown by
December 1917. The Duma Lenin shut down was
not "under the patronage of the monarchy." The
electoral winners, were socialists and revolutionary
ones. Just a different brand than Lenin's Bolsheviks.
Marx praised the direct election of the leaders
of the Paris Commune. The post-revolutionary election
of December 1917 cannot be called "bourgeois
constitutionalism." This fit Marx's prescription. But
Lenin wanted power and he took it. Much that few
approve of followed from his assertion of anti-democratic
power.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, May 21, 2000 4:35 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19394] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re:Re:Re:MarxandMalleability (fwd)
Barkley,
Marx never supported a parliament working under the patronage of
monarchy. He was not a feudalist socialist. That being said, he was
critical of *both* monarchy and bourgeois constitutionalism, which is what
Lenin realized in Russia.
as i always say, socialist politics is a power struggle, agitation and
propoganda, not a romantic marriage. You can not get rid of capitalism by
peaceful means since capitalism did not establish itself by peaceful
means. Marx says in the Manifesto that the violent overthrow of the
bourgeosie is necessary if the proleteriat is to attain its socialist
goals. We can not apply the standarts of liberal bourgeois democracy to
revolutionary circumstances. You are confusing oranges and apples,
Barkley.
adios,
Mine
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 15:10:19
-0400 From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:
[PEN-L:19389] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re:Re:MarxandMalleability (fwd)
MIne,
When Lenin closed it down, there had just been a
reasonably democratic election, the sort of thing
Marx supported. The SRs won, who were neither
monarchists nor lackeys of the aristocracy, very far
from it. One can criticize them and various aspects
of their politics, but not on grounds that they were
anti-socialist or anti-revolutionary. They were just
not Lenin's Bolsheviks. That's all.
The issue is that Lenin used Marx's writings in a
way that it is not at all clear Marx would have supported,
not for the first time in the case of what would become
the USSR.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 7:36 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19347] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re:Re:MarxandMalleability (fwd)
Duma was originally an elite establishment started by autocracy and
liberals allying with the tsarist regime. it was not a democractic
institution to begin with. I think Bolsheviks carried Duma to its logical
conclusion, at a time when european parliemants were still under the
tutelage of monarchies. thus, the closing down of duma should be
understood within its own historical dynamics.
Mine
Mine,
I have less problem with Lenin's seizing power than
I do with his shutting down the Duma a month later when
the SRs won the election rather than his Bolsheviks.
There was the original sin of the Bolshevik Revolution
from which many others flowed after.
