Re: [Marxism] Letter to a Marxmail subscriber

["S. Artesian" <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Lajany makes excellent points in this post and the prior one 
regarding the nature of the Chinese revolution.

It is one thing to argue that the Chinese revolution did not achieve 
socialism.  It is one thing to argue that the Chinese revolution hampered, 
misshapen, by the very same "deformity" that had so weighed upon the Russian 
Revolution, took on all the characteristics of the "degeneration" of the 
Russian Revolution, and took them on at birth.

It's quite something else to say that the Chinese revoluton did not 
expropriate the bourgeoisie, as "weak" as they may have been, did not expel 
the imperial enclaves as little as those enclaves had penetrated the 
agrarian economy, did not socialize, for better and worse, agricultural and 
industrial production-- OR to say that those things merely amount to actions 
of a new capitalist class, or a rival capitalism.

It's one thing to see the organic connection between the USSR AND the fSU, 
the organic connection between Mao's China of 1973 and today's China, but it 
is quite another thing to claim the differences between now and then do not 
constitute, not a new epoch, not hardly, but in fact the defeat of 
revolutions.

And believe it or not, I don't think I could add a single word to improve 
upon Lajany's exposition on the role of incarceration in today's US.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lajany Otum" <lajany_otum@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Letter to a Marxmail subscriber



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu