Carrol,
I expressed doubts whether Kerensky would have
ended the war, not the SRs.
I think the more serious point, and this is in response
to both Mine and Charles Brown as well, is that there was
no movement to any reasonable form of democracy ever
after the revolution. I can certainly accept that during a
revolution, and especially during a war such as the civil
war, one might accept a suspension of democracy. I can
even (maybe) accept the argument that the Duma needed
to be abolished so that something else, presumably better,
could be put in its place.
But, what was put in its place did not involve democracy
in any way shape or form. Now, Charles Brown has suggested,
I guess, that maybe it was sort of democratic because it
represented the "totality" of the people. But, how do we know
that if there were never any votes or elections? Now, I know
somebody might say, "ah, but they did have elections!" Right.
They were ones with only one candidate. And, if you wanted
to vote no, you had to go over in front of the local poll watchers
to a separate site (not under a portrait of Lenin) and put your
no vote there. Some democracy.
I think those who wish to defend Lenin's actions should
give up on trying to massage them into being a fulfillment of
Marx's call for democracy. They were not. Marx certainly
did criticize "bourgeois democracy," but he wanted some
kind of democracy. (There was election of the General
Secretary of the CPSU by the Central Committee, although
generally it was the vote of the Politburo that determined
this outcome, and neither they nor the Central Committee
were elected in any way where there was any chance of an
opposition being elected, or even running).
Barkley Rosser
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 11:40 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19437] Political Constraints, was Re:
:Re:Re:MarxandMalleability (fwd)
>
>
>"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
>
>> The election of December saw a victory
>> by the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Lenin had no good
>> excuse on Marxist grounds for denying them power.
>
>I don't quite see how "Marxist grounds" bear one way or the
>other on this question. There is not that direct & certain a
>relationship between the highest level of theory and direct
>tactical and even strategic questions.
>
>But certainly no fundamental change of social systems will
>ever be approved by an election -- either prior to the change
>or in the years immediately after the first break. I draw no
>immediate conclusions from this premise -- except perhaps
>that there is no saying in advance what should be done under
>such conditions.
>
>I believe in an earlier post you yourself expressed doubt as
>to whether the Socialist Revolutionaries would have ended
>the war. If that is so, then I cannot see any limits whatever
>on the means to be employed in denying them power.
>
>Carrol
>
>
