[Marxism] Communism List

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Wed Nov 26 09:29:09 MST 2003


Jeff Rubbard is not right as to the word "communist". "People" does 
not include yours truly, Mr. Carlsson. Nor many (I would say, "most") 
on this list. The problem, however, lies in that events after, say, 
1925, turned the word "communist" as suspect as the word "social-
democrat".

If by "communist" you mean revolutionary socialists in the Leninist 
tradition, then I would rather say that there is an overwhelming 
majority of communists on this list. 

As to your questions:

> >>  Was tsaristic russia a booming economy when the bolsjeviks took power? 
> >> Did "Lenin" ruin the economy?

It was not. Of course, you can always point to, for example, grain 
export figures, and claim that Russia has only surpassed the pre-
revolutionary records of grain production in 2002. But this means 
nothing. Tsarist "Russia" (in fact, the multinational Empire where 
Tsardom dominated a host of non-Russian peoples as well as the 
Russian workers and peasants) was a "jail of peoples" and a 
semicolony, they had London and Calcutta at the same time and in the 
same country. While you could assist to wonderful ballet 
presentations in Saint Petersburg, you could also assist at the 
ballet of trains of peasants in the Ukraine marching to the fields in 
a row, hand over each other's shoulder, because malnutrition had made 
them blind. And these people worked to harvest wheat --for exports!

There had been a "boom" in Russia, however: a boom of foreign 
investment which would have as certainly turned Russia into a Brazil 
(one of the most unequal countries in the world, though, yes, 
"booming" of foreign investment) and probably tore it to little 
pieces after World War I. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, at the very 
least, turned that menaced country into an industrial power.

And, in fact, even that boom was a reason for the Revolution to take 
place. If Russia wanted to have more "bourgeois" development, it had 
to shake off the old, reactionary, murderous and perverted Tsarist 
aristocracy with all its repugnant traits. It was the Russian 
bourgeois, not the Russian proletarians, who were not up to that 
task. So that it was the proletarians and the peasants who dealt with 
_this_ side of the revolution, too.

> >>Could there have been a development towards parlamentarism and"democracy" 
> >>in Russia based on
> >>wheatexport from ukraine and steelexport from sibiria?

Not more than in Latin America. The secret to the semicolonial 
revolutions lies precisely in _not_ relying any more on exports for 
growth. It lies in the construction of a self-centered economy. This 
is precisely what made all the bourgeoisies in the core countries 
what they are. This is a process that began in the 16th. Century and, 
for those countries, ended in the 19th. They have been trying to 
smother it elsewhere ever since. This is, in a nutshell, what one 
knows as "imperialism". 

> >>Are there som statistics here?
> > 


Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de 
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 






More information about the Marxism mailing list