Wasn't Lenin's view that the revolution could occur at the weakest link in the
capitalist
imperialist chain? He nevertheless expected the chain to break, for there to be a
worldwide
anti-capitalist revolution. It was Stalin wasn't it who was the proponent of
socialism in
one country? Is my memory really going? Are you then saying that Stalin too had it
right?
That the revolution should occur in countries that are not advanced capitalist
countries AND
you can't expect a revolution in advanced capitalist countries?
Even Lenin, Stalin, and rulers of the USSR after Stalin recognised that
capitalism had
developed the means of production that provided the material basis for communism.
Wasn't the slogan to catch up with and surpass the west in production? Didn't
Stalin attempt to stifle
consumption and stress building up the means of production? Didn't Lenin attempt
to
collectivise and modernise agriculture and pull back from this policy only
because of the results, and introduce the NEP.
If capitalism has no revolutionary potential where does that leave us?.
To reiterate
your profound observation. This is not 1840, nor is it Russia in 1917. You live in
USA 1999
in the midst of a capitalist system that is rapidly globalizing. Are you saying
that revolutions
will occur in the periphery, or at the weakest link?. With the USSR disintegrated
and China
adopting what is virtually the capitalist road that Mao fought against, what would
be the chance of survival of such a revolution.
Of course none of what I am saying is meant to imply that we should not
support peoples
and movements that are fighting against the ravages of capitalist incursion such
as the Zapistas, defend gay and lesbian rights, aboriginal land claims, and other
progressive movements..But I don't see that any of these movements in themselves
lead to revolution unless somehow they can be shown to have the power to destroy
the basic underpinnings of global capitalism- private ownership of the means of
production and production for profit not human need. Support for these movements
in no way denies the progressive
features of capitalism.
My point remains that capitalism has developed the wherewithal to provide
everyone with decent health care, education, and nourishment..but it doesn't of
course...I don't really
give a shit what Marx thought later on, his analysis seemed correct in the first
place..and still does. Unless
you can show me differently I am not likely to change my mind. Nothing in your
post gives evidence that contradicts my basic analysis.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Louis Proyect wrote:
> >How can you hold both that capitalism has no progressive aspects and that you
> >are a Marxist at one and the same time? THere are numerous passages in Marx
> >filled with praises of capitalism's progressive features, of the manner in
> which
> >it releases the productive forces of nature and frees people from feudal
> bonds.
> >.
> >
> > CHeers , Ken Hanly
>
> We are not living in the 1840s. By 1860, Marx was already beginning to have
> doubts about capitalism's "revolutionary" aspects, as he observed the
> German bourgeoisie lining up with the Junkers aristocracy against the
> peasants and workers. By the 1870s, he had become thoroughly disgusted with
> capitalism and wrote to the Russian populist movement that they were
> correct in fighting to defend the rural communes against capitalism. He
> said that the accumulation model set forward in V. 1 of Capital was not
> meant to be a universal model. After Marx and Engels died, this tradition
> of radical anti-capitalism was kept alive by Lenin who broke with the
> Mensheviks. They thought it was necessary for Russia to pass through a
> capitalist stage, while Lenin said that socialism was on the agenda. The
> big difference between Lenin and the Mensheviks was on the role of
> capitalism in semicolonial countries like Russia. The Mensheviks thought it
> could have a modernizing and civilizing influence by creating the
> equivalent of maquilas, while Lenin argued that imperialism would only
> prevent modernization and civilization because of its predatory nature. The
> evidence supports Lenin.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
