Re: [Marxism] Lenin on "pure" social revolution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 07.08.2012 18:09, Paul Flewers wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Einde O'Callaghan wrote: 'Of course, there's no guarantee that any revolutionary upheaval will lead to victory for the most radical anti-capitalist forces. And we shouldn't forget that the revolutionary process opened up in 1916 ended up 7 years later in the victory of clerical reactionary forces who introduced the "carnival of reaction" that James Connolly predicted would be the result of the partition of Ireland -- a carnival of reaction that still casts its baleful influence on Irish politics. But that doesn't devalue the revolutionary struggles of the intervening years.' But is not this sorry result in Ireland precisely why one should not have a romantic view of an opposition in Syria that brings together all sorts of elements, from socialists through democrats of various stripes to outright religious reactionaries? Should we not be looking at precisely what the opposition in Syria represents, what currents there are within it and which ones should be supported, rather than condemning the opposition in toto as a reactionary puppet of the big powers, or conversely cheer-leading it in an utterly uncritical manner? That is, of course, the point I'm trying to make. Einde O'Callaghan Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Lenin on "pure" social revolution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Einde O'Callaghan wrote: 'Of course, there's no guarantee that any revolutionary upheaval will lead to victory for the most radical anti-capitalist forces. And we shouldn't forget that the revolutionary process opened up in 1916 ended up 7 years later in the victory of clerical reactionary forces who introduced the "carnival of reaction" that James Connolly predicted would be the result of the partition of Ireland -- a carnival of reaction that still casts its baleful influence on Irish politics. But that doesn't devalue the revolutionary struggles of the intervening years.' But is not this sorry result in Ireland precisely why one should not have a romantic view of an opposition in Syria that brings together all sorts of elements, from socialists through democrats of various stripes to outright religious reactionaries? Should we not be looking at precisely what the opposition in Syria represents, what currents there are within it and which ones should be supported, rather than condemning the opposition in toto as a reactionary puppet of the big powers, or conversely cheer-leading it in an utterly uncritical manner? Paul F Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Lenin on "pure" social revolution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Love this quote -- and Einde's addendum to it. On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Einde O'Callaghan wrote: > > Reading many of the critical comments on the on-going Syrian Revolution I > can't help being reminded of Lenin's criticism of Karl Radek on the 1916 > Rising in Dublin: > > "To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small > nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a > section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a > movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian > masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, > against national oppression, etc.-to imagine all this is to repudiate > social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for > socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, > and that will he a social revolution! Only those who hold such a > ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a > “putsch”. > > "Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it. > Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what > revolution is." > > Of course, there's no guarantee that any revolutionary upheaval will lead > to victory for the most radical anti-capitalist forces. And we shouldn't > forget that the revolutionary process opened up in 1916 ended up 7 years > later in the victory of clerical reactionary forces who introduced the > "carnival of reaction" that James Connolly predicted would be the result of > the partition of Ireland - a carnival of reaction that still casts its > baleful influence on Irish politics. But that doesn't devalue the > revolutionary struggles of the intervening years. > > As Brecht said: "If you fight, you may lose. But if you don't fight, > you've already lost!" > > Einde O'Callaghan > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Lenin on "pure" social revolution
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Reading many of the critical comments on the on-going Syrian Revolution I can't help being reminded of Lenin's criticism of Karl Radek on the 1916 Rising in Dublin: "To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.-to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will he a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a “putsch”. "Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is." Of course, there's no guarantee that any revolutionary upheaval will lead to victory for the most radical anti-capitalist forces. And we shouldn't forget that the revolutionary process opened up in 1916 ended up 7 years later in the victory of clerical reactionary forces who introduced the "carnival of reaction" that James Connolly predicted would be the result of the partition of Ireland - a carnival of reaction that still casts its baleful influence on Irish politics. But that doesn't devalue the revolutionary struggles of the intervening years. As Brecht said: "If you fight, you may lose. But if you don't fight, you've already lost!" Einde O'Callaghan --- Nutzen Sie freenet Mail optimal angepasst für Ihr iPhone, Android oder Nokia Handy auch von unterwegs. Alle Infos und Download unter http://mail.freenet.de/mobile-email/index.html Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
