Town and country in Latin America (was Re: Dependency theory debate inLatin America)

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar
Fri Jun 8 23:01:57 MDT 2001


En relación a Re: Town and country in Latin America (was Re: De, el 8
Jun 01, a las 20:17, Xxxx Xxxxxx dijo:

> 
> Nestor dijo: 
> 
> >The Bolsheviks were _for_ the union of
> > town and country, but they clearly stated that they understood that
> > the town had to take the leadership.  The town is not only the home of
> > the bourgeois. It is also the home of the proletarian.
> 
> True, but at the time that Bolshevik revolution was taking place in Russia,
> there were not enough proletarians in large numbers to lead the socialist
> revolution. Lenin knew that stagism did not apply to Russia, but also made clear
> that, as opposed to Mensheviks,  revolution was _timely_ to overcome Russia's
> capitalist underdevelopment. That is why he stressed proleterian+peasent
> allience as the vungard of the Bolshevik movement. 

Yes, of course, we are in the most absolute of agreements. I was
thinking on something different, which is the project of society the
Bolsheviks tried to take to life.

I was thinking of the relations between town and country under the
first stages of socialism.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar




More information about the Marxism mailing list