j.p.'s response to d.w.

Mike Friedman mikedf at amnh.org
Mon Jul 7 13:12:20 MDT 2003

John's formulation is unduly schematic and recipe-like. What is your
recipe, then, for a legitimate process: one spoonful of democratic
and two of socialist tasks? Why this dogmatic insistence on the word
"combined"? If you are not insisting on this formalistic
interpretation, then I see no difference in content between David's
formulation and yours. If you are insisting that each and every
process immediately "combine" democratic and socialist tasks to
achieve legitimacy, then you are ignoring real life, dissolving the
particular nature of every revolutionary process in some schematic
generality. The revolutionary processes in Vietnam, Grenada,
Nicaragua, the current process in Venezuela, etc., etc., etc.,
involved distinct moments in which only "undiluted" democratic tasks
(elimination of dictatorship, national liberation, land reform,
freedom to organize, etc.) were posed by and for the working masses.
Engagement with these tasks then posed other  tasks ("socialization"
of production) of a socialist nature, which, it is true, were the
only way to protect and extend democratic gains.The processes are
dynamic and vary from case to case in line with national
idiosyncrasies, which is why it is wrong to straitjacket them with
the criterion that they be "combined." The political implications are
that a revolutionary process that doesn't combine tasks isn't really
revolutionary, is bourgeois, or at least it's leadership is.

At 11:49 PM -0400 7/6/03, marxism-digest wrote:
>A democratic revolution may succeed but as such cannot
>fullfill the essential democratic tasks which can only
>be guaranteed if they are combined with socialist
>ones.  That is why, IMO, your statement that "to
>achieve the success of the Democratic revolution...",
>etc is not correct.


More information about the Marxism mailing list