Forwarded from Anthony

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lou:

Please post:

Lou wrote,

"The reason is obvious. The bourgeois state is forced not only to mediate
between different sectors of capital, but--except during extreme
conditions--give the impression that it represents the entire nation as
well. This includes workers and peasants. Thus you end up with figures such
as Argentina's Peron or Chavez in Venezuela. Obviously these are bourgeois
states, but does it make sense for "Leninists" to call for their overthrow?
Obviously they have to be superseded by socialism, but quoting "State and
Revolution" as if it were a catechism simply will not do."

My questions for you, Lou, and othes too, are two:

1. What should Leninists have done, or do now, in relation to "figures such
as Argentina's Peron or Chavez in Venezuela."?

2. How do you see such "figures" differing from a figure like Kerensky?

Anthony


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org