Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 18:36:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Understanding Nicaragua


On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Adam Rose wrote:
> 
> Nevertheless, the question remains, why was it defeated ?
> Not to mention the contras is ridiculous, but this does not
> serve as an explanation. Any revolution of the oppressed will
> be less poorly armed than the counter revolution. Are we saying
> then that no revolution can succeed ? Are we saying that no
> revolution can succeed in a backward country ?
> 

Louis: Disappointment with the Sandinista revolution is rather wide-spead 
on the left. Carlos is simply the most strident expression of this. I 
have been meaning for the longest time to try to come up with a more 
nuanced analysis than one that simply states that the FSLN was a 
sell-out, opportunist, popular front, etc. They were not a Nicaraguan 
version of the Spanish Popular Front or Allende in Chile. There 
*was* something different about the FSLN.

This, by the way, should segue neatly into a discussion on Cuba which is 
also long overdue.

By the way, when I announced that I would be doing a study of Mao and 
the Chinese revolution over the next few months, I didn't realize how 
pointless this exercise would be. I exchanged the 5 books I had on China 
for books on Nicaragua and am looking forward to sharp but comradely 
debate with Hugh, Carlos or whoever else wants to jump in.


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

     ------------------