[Marxism] (Why didn't Lenin) - Marxism in America and

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Tue Jun 8 14:13:55 MDT 2004


In a message dated 6/8/2004 11:07:30 AM Central Standard Time, 
cbrown at michiganlegal.org writes:

>In this back and forth debate, my overall point would be that the end of the
SU must be analyzed with the whole world as the political economic WHOLE,
not just the SU itself. The main arena of the class struggle in the world
was between the SU and the imperialist countries. Thus, imperialist
militarism and economic isolationism were "internal" factors in the
development and failure of the SU. They were just as "internal" as any
shadow operation of the law of value in the SU. <

Comment

Without question I have infinetly more in common and identity of political 
with you than those of the Troskyite Tradition and the various standards of 
anti-Sovietism. 

My polemics are against them and their usage of terms. The USSR in my opinion 
faced a crisis in it industrial system not unlike the crisis of the 
industrial system we are experiencing, as well as in it political structures. 

Part of what launched the present series of articles was an old statement by 
Mark J. that the Soviet Union exhausted its historical potential in 1945. I 
called this absurd because "historical potential" means all the room in a system 
for development of its productive forces. Since we are talking about the 
industrial system and can now define its boundary and limits . . . and what brings 
to an end expansion on the electromechanical basis, he cannot be correct. 

Further historical potential in terms of the Soviets property relations were 
not exhausted. 

Representatives of bourgeois property carried out the insurrection - not the 
revolution, in the Soviet Union. 

This question of the working class overthrowing bourgeois property - 
capitalism, deserves further attention over the next decade or two. 

Lets see what happens. 

Melvin P. 




More information about the Marxism mailing list