[Marxism] popular front

Paddy Apling e.c.apling at btinternet.com
Tue Oct 4 14:14:09 MDT 2005

At 06:03 04/10/2005, Mark Lause wrote:

>Suggesting that things would have been very different if Roosevelt had
>lived longer compliments an earlier remark that everything would have
>been different had Roosevelt died earlier and been replaced by Wallace.
>I think this emphasis on individuals is seriously mistaken, not because
>it is fundamentally non-Marxist (which it is), but because it fails to
>address WHY individuals had the impact they did.

No Mark, it is NOT fundamentally anti-Marxist.  Individuals in 
positions of power or leadership DO matter.

Of course it IS fundamentally un-Marxist to suggest that historical 
events depend on the opinions or actions of one "great" man - (as so 
many seem to suggest everything that wentwrong with the Soviet Union 
is all due to one man {who must not be mentioned on this list]), but 
to suggest that it makes no difference who is leader is completely 
wrong.   Often whole classes are bemused by a given leader and are 
led to forsake their class interests (as the American ruling class 
were led to forsake their class interest of alliance with Hitler 
against the Soviet Union by the fact that the current American 
President was such a brilliant politician as FDR).

It is absolutely plausible that. had he lived, that FDR in presidency 
would have led to a less antagonistic outcome than did arise - 
knowing full well that, of course, he would probably have succumbed 
eventually to the demands of his class.

Once again the dialectic of history  !!!

But, I agree, what ifs of this sort are really a waste of time and effort.


More information about the Marxism mailing list