Re: [Marxism] Re: Bolivia discussion

[Brian Shannon <brian_shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 7, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Richard Fidler wrote:

> In answer to Brian Shannon, I take note that Brian thinks "old
> schemas and stereotypes" are "what we have learned from the
> Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Algerian, Nicaraguan, Guatemalan, Iran
> (Mossadegh), ... all of Trotsky and most of Lenin (the part from
> the April Theses on)."

You are purposefully ignoring my irony. Putting the "we" part of it  
aside, it is clear that the "old schemas and stereotypes" are what  
the "Nationalists" (stealing Montgomery's phrase) have abandoned  
despite the lessons of the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Algerian,  
Nicaraguan, Guatemalan, and Iranian revolutions.

> the whole problematic of transitional regimes, as,
> for an earlier generation (that includes me) Cuba did, and
> continues to do. The process within each social (state) formation
> is unique in important ways.

The American Marxist scholar, George Novack, taught us that A is A,  
but that it is also A^, even if it is only because it occupies a  
different place on the page or cyberspace. Nestor says that we should  
pay attention to gas and water and even the power of the American  
Embassy. And the Cuban revolutionists had to pay attention to sugar.  
And in Iraq, the revolutionists must pay attention to oil. Mossadegh  
paid attention to oil, but not nearly enough to the peasants and  
agricultural workers.

However, the Traditionalists (again stealing Montgomery's extremely  
valuable summary of the differences) say that we need to incorporate  
what we have learned about imperialism, class struggle, political  
parties and the overthrow of the capitalist states, including not  
only Trotsky's very specific and flexible adaptation of the theory of  
permanent revolution to India, China, Spain, Mexico—I need not go on.  
In short, we are not talking about things; specific things, including  
national resources, ethnic and specific historic traditions are the  
living elements of any revolution.

The "unique" "social (state) formations" are different for each  
country. A for Cuba is not A for Bolivia. Lenin's State and  
Revolution did not pretend to describe the specific rallying points  
for each country, whether they are oil, gas, water, forestry,  
fisheries, etc.; but it did claim that certain lessons of the class  
struggle were to be learned from Marx and the Paris Commune (I  
probably should have added that lesson above).

Brian Shannon


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism