Hugh,
This is a bit unfair as I was trying to be generally complementary.
Though I am not exactly sure how you can presume on what basis I
would disagree. I must be SO obvious! :)
> Including this too?
> >> But the reality is that in this whole century capitalism has been
> >> objectively ripe for revolution
If by 'whole century' Dave means that throughout the century
there have been opportunities for revolution then I agree. If he
meant that at all point in all places revolution was constantly
busting out then I am not so sure.
Of course, in my view it has been a century of fruiting (to keep the
metaphor) socialist revolutions. The only problem is that in western
European countries (especially the failure in Germany following the
1st Imperialialist War) the ripe fruits have not been harvested and
has been left to go rotten. But I would blame that of the strenth of
Eurocentric Menchevism and people (perhaps like you Hugh) who have
sought to make alliance with reactionary reformist 'socialist'
parties (such as you outspoken call for a vote for the Labour Party
because of its supposed 'left-wing' candidate). Or the diversion into
Labour movement internal battles which - while sometimes being
progressive - are rarely revolutionary. Reforms should be the
by-product of the striving for revolution not an end in themselves.
> >> it was the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Trotsky
> >> who developed marxism beyond Eurocentric menshevism
> Trotsky too??
Trotsky as the post-Menchevich leader of the Red Army, Minister for
Foreign Affairs and Politburo member was o.k. as far as I am
concened, just many others were. But I think that ice-picks can have
more uses than just breaking ice :)
Regards,
John
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
