From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sat Dec 20 2003 - 10:58:09 EST
> Seriously, what would you > call someone who, if Cuba's project were to collapse, might say Marx had > the last laugh or who might argue against accelerating the process in > Venezuela because, in the absence of the fully developed capitalist mode > of production, all attempts at exploding the society would be Don > Quixotism? Hi Mike L. There are those who have taken this, or similar, positions from both the Right and the Left. I certainly don't think that critics of the Bolshevik leadership, such as Luxemburg or Kollantai, were conservative. However ... I suppose one could claim that Martov and the Mensheviks were 'conservative' -- but _only_ in relation to the Bolsheviks and other political formations to the Left of the Mensheviks. Similarly, one could claim that Lenin and Trotsky were 'conservative' _in relation to_ Kollantai and the Workers' Opposition. This does not imply support or opposition on my part for either Lenin or Kollantai because labeling someone a 'conservative' _in the above sense_ is not necessarily a criticism. However, it is misleading to call either Lenin or Kollantai (or Castro or Chavez or Chattopadhyay) a conservative because this term is _also_ a political designation which is used synonymously with 'reactionary'. Bush is a reactionary; Paresh is _not_! So, what would I call Paresh? I would say that Paresh is a Marxist and a revolutionary who I have significant political and theoretical differences with. To call him a conservative is, at best, misleading and gets in the way of having a potentially meaningful dialogue on the issues. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 22 2003 - 00:00:01 EST