j.p.'s response to d.w.
albatrosrojo2000 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 7 21:01:16 MDT 2003
Mike Friedman <mikedf at amnh.org> wrote:
If you are not insisting on this
> formalistic interpretation, then I see no difference
in content between David's formulation and yours.
Don't worry Mike, David DID understand what we were
discussing. I recommend you read first and comment
later rather than the other way around. That will save
your time and mine.
"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."
Nope. If they are not combined they are not about to
evolve into socialist revolutions. But there are more
categories of revolutions, right? Do you follow? There
ARE democratic, anti-imperialist and anti-dictatorial
revolutions and some other kinds as well. Follow me?
Now, if a given revolution combine democratic demands
and tasks with socialist ones, it may _ not guarantee
- become a socialist one.
There are also more leaderships than just bourgeois or
And a democratic revolution, or a political one are
still revolutions even if they are not socialist
Not every one in camouflage is a guerrilla, nor every
one holding an AK-47 is a revolutionary and not
everyone in camouflage and holding an AK-47 is making
a socialist revolution.
I know, I know, life used to be so simple in the
Sometimes some of those non-proletarians and
non-bourgeois are not even making a revolution. Isn't
that hard to understand, really ... Now, either read
the PR book - and other theory - and argue about them
with some base or discuss it with Jose who didn't
understand it - or read it - either.
Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión
4004-1010 desde Buenos Aires. Usuario: yahoo; contraseña: yahoo
Más ciudades: http://conexion.yahoo.com.ar
More information about the Marxism