From: "Ishai Parasol" <iparasol-AT-netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: M-TH: stalinists Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 07:31:24 +0200 Hello John Mullen As I understand marx ideas, the workers should take pore by force (violence) only in a revolution that takes action in a non-democratic enviroment, and only if there's no other choice (like in Ethiopia's 1973 revolution - when Menegistu kicked out the feodal Hayle Selassy). By the way, history teaches us that in that case, again, Menegistu become a stalinist. Generally - this is the only "case" that marx "allows" using force (violence) for taking pore. In my opinion, democracy is one of the main "tools" the modern socialism has for handling the "self - managing" theory. If our goal is to build a new society, we have to make sure that this society will be able to manage itself peacefully and to base it on discussions and not violent workers revolutions. In a case of a violent revolution in a real democratic enviroment (like a prime minister assasination for changing the country leadership) a very big grave will be digged - for the old and new societies together. So maybe the most important question in twentieth century politics is how can we make a non-violent revolution (that leads to a socialist society) in this capitalistic, liberal, democratic world of ours ??? Ishai Parasol Hashomer Hatzair Israeli socialist youth movement email: iparasol-AT-netvision.net.il ---------- > From: jc mullen <100663.643-AT-CompuServe.COM> > To: INTERNET:marxism-thaxis-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU > Subject: Re: M-TH: stalinists > Date: יום ראשון, אוקטובר 27, 1996 05:46 > > It is clearly extremely important to sort out whether or not "stalinism was a > consequence of the leninist view of marxism" or not. If it was, forget the idea > of a revolutionary party, workers councils replacing the state etc etc. > Well, I don't think it was. My two main arguments are > > 1) social formations such as stalinism are not caused by the theories of > political organisations, but by class forces. Stalinism was the political > crystallisation of a new type of capitalism, state capitalism, whcih left all > that is essential about capitalism in place (accumulation as the motor of the > economy, not democratic decisionmaking) at the same time as getting rid of some > secondary characteritiscs (legally private posession of th means of production) > > 2) If stalinism had been the natural consequence of leninism, there would have > been no need for the purges. The vast majority of the leaders of the Russians > revolution of 1917 were killed by Stalin. Why would he need to do this if > stalinism wasthe natural consequence of Lenin's marxism... it could all have > been set up calmly without purges and faction fights. > > > This is the most important question in twentieth century politics, because if > workers taking poer naturally leads to horrible dictatorship, then we are only > left with capitalism of barbarism, neither of which appeal to me. > > John mullen > Socialisme International > France > > > > --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005