Fwd: Re: [Marxism] Re: "the main danger to the Cuban Revolution is in its own leadership"

Mauricio Martinez kidvanguard at yahoo.ca
Mon Aug 29 10:57:10 MDT 2005




Reply to Carl Webb

A more sophisticated analysis would be one that respects the fact that Cuba is _qualitiatively_ different than China, the USSR, etc., by virtue of the fact of their different geography, history, the name of the country, etc., in the same way that when analyzing commodities in a market system we recognize that a coat is different than a pound of beef, a candlestick, a bag of garbage, etc. If we compare them, then, we do so on a quantitative basis, i.e. # of people, sq. miles of land, amount of jungle as opposed to prairie, and so on.
   Once we recognize this to be the case, we can still employ Trotsky's analysis of the USSR (if it holds), provided we understand that it is a _tendency_ that exists in relative terms in different concrete situations, i.e. (in very crude terms) China is 60% like the USSR, Cuba is 40% and so on. My point is that simply saying that an analysis holds in different situations tells us nothing. But saying exactly _where it does and where it doesn't_, that is, to demarcate the 60% that China _is like_ the USSR, and the 40% _where it isn't_, makes all the difference.
 
MM

Carl Webb <carlwebb at gmail.com> wrote:
Exactly what kind of sophisticated analysis do you need of Vietnam,
North Korea, China, Venezuela etc? I think it's ludicrous that you
accept without any further qualification that these states actually
represent existing socialism.


Carl

On 8/27/05, Mauricio Martinez wrote:
> I can't think of a more undialectical, and frankly robotic statement than this one right here, which only confirms Walter's statement about the "regretfullness" of various sectarian analyses of actually existing socialism (or attempts at socialism).
> The question is whether Trotsky's analysis of the degeneration of the USSR immediately, without any further qualification, applies to Vietnam, North Korea, China, Venezuela etc. This is ludicrous. Let's remember our dialectical materialism people. Lenin provides a good summary of the dialectical approach in "The Three Sources and Component Parts of Marxism." He defines it as the doctrine "of the relativity of human knowledge, which provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter."
> So Trotsky's analysis of the USSR, as human knowledge, was relative to, and a reflection of, a situation that has eternally developed itself out of existence. I mean, what the hell?! Is it too much to ask for a more sophisticated analysis than Calvinist declarations of Trotskyist dogma? Really! Just goes to show you that sometimes intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than vulgar materialism.

> Mauricio Martinez


Mauricio Martinez
Graduate Student,
Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition
McMaster University
(905) 529-1461
kidvanguard at yahoo.ca
http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~global/

---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos


Mauricio Martinez
Graduate Student,
Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition
McMaster University
(905) 529-1461
kidvanguard at yahoo.ca
http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~global/
		
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos


More information about the Marxism mailing list