Re: [Marxism] Re: The Teixeira thesis

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Julio Huato wrote:

> This is not a serious argument.  Without the Russian Revolution as it
> happened, we would not have had Ronald Reagan and the defeat of the
> revolution in Nicaragua, etc.

Excuse me? The US invaded Mexico, Haiti and Nicaragua without needing a
Communist bogeyman. Sandino was an anarchist who backed bourgeois
candidates who eventually betrayed him. That did not prevent the Marines
from occupying Nicaragua.

> Aren't you aware that, in 1921, four years after the Soviets took power,
> Lenin had in mind precisely "an extended period of capitalist development"
> (or, as he called it, of "state capitalism" with plenty room for private
> business, nepmen, and foreign capitalists) as a pre-condition not only for
> socialism but even to restore the working class and a meaningful Soviet
> democracy?

The same sort of initiatives being taken Cuba today. But the USA
understands that this is not the capitalism it seeks. Club Med hotels
running under agreements hammered out with a government that sends 5,000
doctors to Venezuela is not quite in line with the State Department
agenda.

> Lenin said repeatedly that many "transitional stages" were necessary to
> prepare the "transition for communism."  Yes, stages!  The April Theses,
> written in the turmoil between the February and October revolutions, were an
> eminently political document with an eye to preventing a czarist
> restoration.  By far, the April Theses were *not* an analysis of Russia's
> economic possibilities under Communist rule.

Of course not. Communism can only be developed based on the relationship
of class forces and other factors that are not visible in a crystal ball.

> If the bourgeoisie and imperialism don't allow a period of capitalist
> development under Communist rule, then China and Vietnam haven't noticed it
> yet.

China?!?! This country is utterly unrecognizable as having any kind of
revolutionary or socialist values and policies. I haven't given that much
attention to Vietnam, but I am skeptical that it will not follow exactly
the same road.

> What do you mean "the Kautskyan perspective"?  The view that the Bolsheviks
> should have not taken power in Russia in 1917 and the critique of the
> Soviets in the immediate aftermath of the revolution?  Or the kind of
> Kautskyan "stagism" that Lenin himself was putting forth in 1921?

Read Lenin's caustic reply to Kautsky in the speech that Zizek cited
(erroneously). He takes pains to distinguish himself from Kautsky who
thought that the NEP was vindicating his reformist outlook.

> I've already stated my views on the DP.  I think Marvin's views need to be
> taken into due consideration.  The style and volatile temperament of Louis
> Proyect makes it unnecessarily complicated to have a clear, substantive
> debate on these issues, as people get distracted with polemical trickery.
> Yet Louis is also the owner of this list that so far lets diverse people
> present their views.  Talk about an unstable equilibrium!

There might come a time when views in support of the Democratic Party
might not serve any further pedagogic purposes. There are 2 people out of
500 who support the Democrats. Doesn't that tell you something?

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism