Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:52:33 +0000
Subject: Re: M-G: Re: M-I: Democratic Congo


>
> 
> KARL: Hi Dave! In Dublin the weather has been very stormy. 
> >
> Incidentally I never advvocated national democratic revolution for
> this region either as you seem to intimate in the body of your
> response to the relevant posting of mine.
>
Well what do you advocate for Central Africa if not a socialist 
revolution, or not even a national/democratic revolution? Does 
central Africa have to stay semi-colonised by imperialism for another 
50 years before it qualifies for revolution?

> KARL: A socialist revolution cannot establish itself in backward countries
> like Burundi, Rwanda or Zaire. Neither the necessary objective nor
> subjective conditions exist for socialist revolution in this region.
> And even if were possible for a socialist revolution to take to
> place there it would not last long in the absence of revolution in a 
> more global context. 
>
Insnt this a contradiction. Either socialist revolution can happen or 
it can't. If it can they we have a duty to fight for it, and as you 
correctly point out fight for a global revolution. Do you think that 
a revolution in central Africa would have no repercussions in the 
rest of Africa.For a start the masses in South Africa would be torn 
between backing imperialism to smash a revolution or arming 
themselves to support such a revolution. Do you think that South 
Africa today has the objective and subjective conditions for a 
socialist revolution? 
 
> KARL: You observe that while I may reject socialism in one country I
> also reject socialist revolution in one country. Here you slay
> yourself with your own sword Dave. If one rejects socialism in one
> country, as you purport to, then it logically follows that you must
> reject socialist revolution in one country. In other words it is
> clear that if there takes place a socialist revolution in one country
> then it follows that there must socialism must establish itself in that country.
> Trotskyism, which I up until recently supported, is  replete with this 
> kind of obscurantist irony. Trotskyism likes to have it both ways.
>
What kind of obsurantist trotskyism are you a refugee from? Lenin 
makes a distinction between a socialist revolution - the Bolshevik 
revolution - and building socialism in Russia, the former happening 
because Russia was the `weakest link' in imperialism, the latter not 
happening unless the world revolution came to the rescue. 
Isnt that good enough for Zaire too? Or do we tell the workers and 
peasants to wait until some more advanced state with a "fully" 
developed working class begins its revolution before they rise up?
Don't you see this is a left cover for democratic imperialism.?

KARL: Apart from this it is ironic to hear a so called trotskyist use a
> Stalinist argument, that socialism in one country is possible, to
> criticise Stalinism. However the irony is merely ostensible since
> Stalinism and Trotskyism are merely modifications of (statist)
> Leninism which is a counter-revolutionary politics.

If Leninism is counter-revolution you are going to have lots of 
trouble recognising  the prescribed pre-conditions for revolution,
because even Lenin admitted that in revolutionary times he got left 
behind,  and the rest of the Bolsheviks were behind him.  Where does 
this leave you?

Dave



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---