[Marxism] Quiting Marxism, embracing what?

Carlos Petroni cepetroni at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 2 20:55:16 MST 2006

   To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
   Subject: Re: [Marxism] Quiting Marxism, embracing what?
On 12/2/06, Carlos Petroni <cepetroni at yahoo.com> wrote:

We don't learn theory in any other ways than through approximations, we
can't learn and evolve organizationally in any other way than by
approximations and that will necessarily include a number of missteps, mistakes, errors

Sayan Bhattacharyya wrote:

"Is this _always_ true? Would it have been better for a Marxist in, say,
Cambodia in the 1979, to join the  Khmer  Rouge  (which was avowedly
Marxist)? Or for a Marxist in Albania in 1980 to join Enver Hoxha's
Communist Party? Wouldn't not joining any group at all have been better in
these cases?"


No, is not such a thing as a rule holding the answer for a problem
under all circunstances.  Whoever thinks that is a fool. While I'm
not particularly a genius, I ain't a fool.  So the answer is
no, it is not always true.

But consider this about the two examples you gave:

The first to support the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea
to get rid of the Kmer Rouge were party units and military
units of the Kmer Rouge. The detachment of Kampuchean troops
and Vietnamese "advisors" who hunted down Pol Pot and his top
commanders in the jungle and brought them to court were former
members (I think officers) of the Kmer Rouge.

What brought Hoxa's regime down was a coalition in which former members
of the Party of Labor played a leading role. Same happened in
Romania with Ceasescu.

Now, if what came after those events were a solution to the
problems created by Pol Pot, Hoxa or Ceasescu is another

Lea todos los días análisis y articulos de izquierda y un servicio de noticias que se actualiza cada hora. Lea Izquierda Punto Info

Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

More information about the Marxism mailing list