On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 08:25 AM, Charles wrote: > > No wraps to lift. See > http://www.idcommunism.com/2023/04/material-forces-that-turn-socialism-into-capitalism.html >
Thanks for this, Charles. An interesting read. I got halfway through the 8500 words when I was pulled up short by the puzzle of whether or not you rejected the great man theory of history. You seem to reject it when you dismiss the Keeren and Kenny account as "The tale of Andropov and Gorbachev is a great-man theory of history." Then five paragraphs later you write: "Just as Nikita Khrushchev tossed out hard-won Marxist-Leninist theory, so did Deng Xiaoping dismiss Marxist-Leninist philosophy. He did it in the open and also by his silence when it came to communist theory." So is the great man theory wrong because it names the wrong great man? I assure you this isn't a "gotcha" I pulled out of context. What you seem to me to be saying is that the road to capitalism began with a degeneration of socialism that was initiated by some leaders who abandoned "hard-won Marxist-Leninist theory." I suspect that these leaders did not drop out of the sky but rose through the ranks of the socialist (according to you) system that was presumably guided by that hard-won Marxist-Leninist theory." As you wrote: > > The obvious question is, how did persons like Khrushchev and Deng rise to > power? They were energetic. During long careers in the party and state, > they were assigned big projects and completed them no matter what, > demonstrating strong administrative capability. But they never showed that > they understood communism. Nonetheless, the Party let them become > political leaders, deciding what the big tasks are. > The explanation for this turn of history in the first two socialist > countries must lie in the earlier years of socialism. This explanation > remains to be done. > So halfway through your essay we learn that the secret of the rise to power of K and D must remain a mystery? Talk about an anti-climax! But maybe the answer arrives in the rest of the essay? No. Instead of answering that question directly you prescribe a series of prophylactic measures designed to forestall the rise to power of people like Khruschev and Deng and conclude with an encomium to the Cultural Revolution in China under Mao. As we know, the Cultural Revolution did not prevent Deng's rise to power. "Maybe it was too late for the Cultural Revolution to succeed." Each of your measures is framed as a "let us" prescription, which begs the question of who us is. It assumes that the "us" you are appealing to already form a consensus around the measures you propose. But what if some of "us" are just agreeing to those measures because they are energetic and ambitious to get ahead. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39186): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39186 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116179785/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
