Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 09:51:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: When is a workers' state no longer a workers' state?


I say, old stick, your prose is impenetrable. The question you are
addressing is an interesting one, but you have to learn how to
communicate. I have not seen so much jargon strung together in my entire
lifetime. As a rule of thumb, you should attempt to repackage your ideas
in language that would be understood by your family over a holiday dinner.
Thank of what Aunt Rose would make of "logically excludes the reality of
state capitalism from the transition process." She would probably choke on
her baked ham.

Louis Proyect

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, LCMRCI wrote:

> The real test of the absurdity of the LRCI position is that it logically 
> excludes the reality of state capitalism from the transition process.  It 
> therefore cannot direct its programme at class struggle under state 
> capitalism. Its claims to programmatic correctness are baseless. If the 
> state is bourgeois, how can political revolution be on the agenda?  If the 
> social relations are still workers property what demands do workers put on 
> the state? Do we call for the smashing of the state to defend workers 
> property? Do we call on the state to defend workers property?  The sheer 
> confusion that results from the LRCI's position disqualifies it from 
> revolutionary leadership. Its method and theory are centrist and so is its 
> practice.
> 
> Dave Brown.
> Communist Workers Group of New Zealand.
> 



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