Re: [Marxism] India: On the issue of Third Front,

[Tom Cod <tcod@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"the experience of Bolsheviks themselves was not so encouraging in this regard 
and the whole
policy of permititng to join the representatives of different class in
government, resulted in a fiasco."

evidence for this academic assertion?  which "class" do you claim the 
Mensheviks and the Left SRs,
the political program of the latter on agriculture having been adopted verbatim 
by the Soviets, represented.  the peasants
or do you mean to suggest the bourgoisie?  Weren't the Mensheviks rooted in 
unions like the railroad workers?  
the "fiasco" you mention was the Civil War launched by counter-revolution and 
the imperialists.  The approach of trying to build the widest support
for the Soviet government and the social revolution was entirely adept and 
proper and helped facilitate their
victory.  Whether it was "politically correct" by the standards of some 
orthodoxy or not is hardly
pertinent at all; in fact it was precisely "left wing"academic marxists aligned 
with Liberals-in the style of 
sectarians today, who brought that shit up that the Bolsehviks had "betrayed 
Marxism".  In that connection
Reed in "Ten Days" talks about an encounter between some Mensheviks trying to 
run interference at the Winter
Palace the night Kerensky was overthrown with one of them yelling in the face 
of Bolshevik worker,
"See here, I'm a Marxian student!"

there's never been a "politically correct" revolution in history at all and 
never will be.  Whilee much can 
be learned from studying revolutionary history going back to the Bolsheviks and 
before 
to that of the French Revolution, focusing too much on that in the sterile 
manner of "revolutionary"
"civil war buffs" (if only Lee or so and so had "followed through")at the 
expense of keeping one's 
eye on the ball can lead to being sidetracked and fooled as politics is an art, 
not a science. 
So there was no revolution in China or Cuba because they differed from Russia 
in 1917 or because "Trotsky
said so and so"? (What trotky did say that is pertinent is that "revolution is 
the conscious intervention of the masses into 
history"). 

Hey, what the fuck does it matter?  Who the fuck cares?  Let's do a materialist 
analysis of what actually occurred.
How can anyone think that history would or could repeat itself 
so mechanically except those mired at least subliminally in some kind of 
conspiracy theory
of it thinking 1789 was a function of the machinations of Robespierre etc. 
instead of an epochal social 
upheaval.

 

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_032009
________________________________________________
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