> When Chris lauds Blair, he is lauding
>a reformist.
[And when Hugh beats his wife, he is a male chauvinist.]
>Let's call a revisionist someone who thinks that somehow socialism will
>grow automatically out of a non-bourgeois, workers state. Once the
>bourgeoisie has been expropriated, the re
>Hugh, are your really calling Gramsci a revisionist?
>
>And if so what type of revisionist is he, and what is your evidence?
>
>(I will still allow that you might want to call many self-declared
>*Gramscians* revisionists, but that is not necessarily the same question.)
>
>Chris Burford
Yes.
L
