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
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
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
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.
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
