True, Charles, but surely the important thing for a Marxist is a revolution that leads
to socialism. And there Marx's contention that it
could only occur in an advance capitalist country still holds.
Rod
Charles Brown wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/14/00 05:59PM
very true. plus Luxemburg..
Revolution can "only occur in an advance capitalist country?". Which
Marxists subscribe to this notion besides vulgar orthodoxs nowadays? This
was *not* Marx's contention. Marx's circumstances were entirely different
when he came closer to this idea, but he never explicitly put it.
History
I'd say it more this way, Rod. There is no successful socialism without it eventually
being a world revolution. But that doesn't mean that the world revolution starts
everywhere at the same time.
And directly to your point, and proven by the first efforts to build socialism in the
20th
Rod Hay wrote:
True, Charles, but surely the important thing for a Marxist is a revolution that
leads to socialism.
NO! This is to pretend that we access to a crystal ball. The important
thing for a Marxist is revolution aimed at socialism. Whether it succeeds
in maintaing itself to fit
This is closer to what I believe, Charles. But even so. It is likely that a revolution
that starts anywhere but the US or Western Europe would quickly be bombed to oblivion.
Even in US or Western Europe, it must be a mass democratic upheaval, rather than a
small group coup d'etat.
Rod
I can not think of any revolution that was not a mass democratic
movement, if the meaning of revolution is not conflated with
coup-d'etat, of course!
Mine
it was written:
mass democratic movement rather than a small group coup d'etat.
Charles Brown wrote:
There is no successful socialism
very true. plus Luxemburg..
Lenin and Trotsky were both champions of arguments against the Second
International-Menshevik claim that socialism couldn't take root in
'backward' places.
Bill Burgess
And on all the evidence, all three of them were wrong, and Martov and
company were right...
