Re: marxism & (under)development

[rahul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rahul Mahajan)]

>The exchanges with the PCP crowd, and about Peru, Maoism, and sex, should
>lead to some serious discussion about the relation of Marxism to the level
>of economic and social development. Maybe all the attempts to revise
>Marxism to apply to semi-literate, semi-industrialized agrarian-rural
>societies - and the enthusiasm of First World radical intellectuals for
>such a project - have been mistakes after all. Educated aristocrats like AO
>nominate themselves as the vanguard of a people with an understanding of
>their own misery, but not much more, which makes it easy for the leadership
>to hijack the revolution in their own interests - they become a kind of
>hothouse bourgeoisie who (would) promote a distorted and undemocratic
>development that is unable to cope, except through repression, with the
>strains coming from within their own societies and from imperial
>hostilities from without.
>
>Maybe. I'm not convinced of this, and am eager to listen to arguments to
>the contrary. But it would seem a fruitful topic for discussion.
>
>Doug


Why? All you first world intellectuals going to tell the huddled masses
what to do?

What would you suggest people living in places full of injustice and misery
do, if it gets shown conclusively that attempts at building socialism are
doomed from the start?

Rahul




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---