Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unemployment & corruption
I said: > >why not? it sure seems to fit the standard definition: peasants take power > >(under the leadership of a party that is organized along "Leninist" lines, > >i.e., as a top-down hierarchy of the sort that became popular under Stalin) > >and the state takes over the means of production. Louis writes: >Sorry, Jim. If I am going to discuss Cambodia, it will be on the same basis >that I discuss anything in depth. I will have to spend time in the Columbia >library and really dig in. I don't think you have the time nor the >inclination to keep up your side of the debate, so I will let things drop >right here. you were willing to say that the Khmer Rouge's revolution in Cambodia wasn't socialist without studying the issue in depth. It's true I don't have the time (though I do have the inclination -- please do NOT attribute motivations to me since you cannot read my mind), so this is my last message to pen-l today. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unemployment & corruption
In a message dated 10/11/00 6:08:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << It seems to me a clear case of bad socialism (though it shouldn't be used to say anything about socialism in general). >> I can't remember any details, but Michael Vickery had a discussion of this topic in a book on Cambodia in which I thought he did a good job of deflating the KR's pretensions to being socialists. I haven't read it in many years, though. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: unemployment & corruption
Jim Devine: >why not? it sure seems to fit the standard definition: peasants take power >(under the leadership of a party that is organized along "Leninist" lines, >i.e., as a top-down hierarchy of the sort that became popular under Stalin) >and the state takes over the means of production. Sorry, Jim. If I am going to discuss Cambodia, it will be on the same basis that I discuss anything in depth. I will have to spend time in the Columbia library and really dig in. I don't think you have the time nor the inclination to keep up your side of the debate, so I will let things drop right here. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: unemployment & corruption
I wrote: > >Not all of them do. Look at Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea, which replaced > >one ravage for another. No matter how many the Khmer Rouge killed, it's > >more than in the average capitalist country. Louis writes: >No socialist revolution here. why not? it sure seems to fit the standard definition: peasants take power (under the leadership of a party that is organized along "Leninist" lines, i.e., as a top-down hierarchy of the sort that became popular under Stalin) and the state takes over the means of production. Was it non-socialist because the Khmer Rouge had an incorrect line? a wrong program? because its leadership dabbled in French structuralism? It seems to me a clear case of bad socialism (though it shouldn't be used to say anything about socialism in general). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: unemployment & corruption
Jim Devine: >Not all of them do. Look at Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea, which replaced >one ravage for another. No matter how many the Khmer Rouge killed, it's >more than in the average capitalist country. No socialist revolution here. >Is this the only choice? what about if the TDU were to really take control? TDU, sure. Good. >To repeat myself (again!), the problem with the corrupt "trade unions" that >ruled Eastern Europe is that they undermined their own popular support, >making them prone to overthrow, from within and without. Okay. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: unemployment & corruption
This discussion is getting very repetitive, so I shortened it. I wrote: > >More importantly, I don't see why anyone has to choose between Brezhnev and > >Putin. Why can't we reject both? Louis responds: >Because postcapitalist economies function like trade unions--they offer >working people protection against the ravages of the free market. Not all of them do. Look at Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea, which replaced one ravage for another. No matter how many the Khmer Rouge killed, it's more than in the average capitalist country. >I would choose Jimmy Hoffa against a break-up of the Teamsters at the >hands of the FBI. Is this the only choice? what about if the TDU were to really take control? To repeat myself (again!), the problem with the corrupt "trade unions" that ruled Eastern Europe is that they undermined their own popular support, making them prone to overthrow, from within and without. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
