>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)
