Louis N Proyect
lnp3 at columbia.edu
Wed Jun 19 06:08:23 MDT 1996
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Adam Rose wrote:
> Do you not think the common elements I pointed out existed in the four
> countries : India,Egypt,Algeria,Cuba ?
> 1. Revolutions, led by sections of the middle class.
> 2. Working class prevented from playing leading role by Stalinist CP's.
> 3. State plays a central role in production after revolution.
Louis: Doesn't this approach smack of Political Science 101? "Class, today
we are going to compare the totalitarian governments of Adolf Hitler and
Joseph Stalin. They both ruled through fear, utilized forced labor and
suspended civil liberties. Both were socialists. Both appealed to
nationalist passions. Finally, both were paranoid individuals."
The other problem is that even on the basis of Adam's own doctrine, there
are striking differences between India and Cuba. The "revolution" in India
never targeted the national bourgeoisie. Behind Ghandi's populist
obfuscations there was always the obvious presence of the ruling elite who
would constitute themselves as the Congress Party.
In Cuba the bourgeoisie was put out of business. If you don't believe me,
look up this fellow Mas Canosa in Miami.
What's interesting to me about Algeria and Egypt is that the bourgeoisie
*was not* put out of business. Behind all of the "socialist" spectacle
(especially in Algeria), there was always a national bourgeosie operating
behind the scenes. I will try to shed some light on this class in
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism