RE: English and French revolutions (Re: Re.: What is Post-Marxism?)

[James Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

------Original Message------
From: "Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" <Gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: September 21, 2000 11:19:57 AM GMT
Subject: English and French revolutions (Re: Re.: What is Post-Marxism?)


>En relación a Re.: What is Post-Marxism?,
>el 21 Sep 00, a las 0:25, Chris Brady dijo:

>> Julio Pino wrote: "More importantly, The French Revolution >>showed, by
>> counter-example, that England LACKED a revolutionary >>bourgeosie that
>> might copy the French model and drown the aristocracy in >blood."
>>
>> There was a Great Revolution in England in the mid-1600s, non?

>Yes, and Great it was indeed. But, as even French bourgeois
>historians delight in pointing out, this revolution took the >form of
>a struggle for the Medieval rights _of Englishmen_, while the >French
>revolution took the form of a wholehearted struggle against >anything
>bestowed by the Middle Ages, and for _humankind_.

So would it then be the case that perhaps the English
are paying the price of having had their revolution
too early?  That the French did better by having their's
over a century later, and that the Russians still better
by waiting until the 20th century before having their's?

Jim Farmelant


>Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
>gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx