[Marxism] China's high speed rail plans
lueko.willms at t-online.de
Fri Sep 4 00:42:58 MDT 2009
S. Artesian (sartesian at earthlink.net) wrote on 2009-09-04 at 00:38:31
about Re: [Marxism] China's high speed rail plans:
> Funny isn't it how neither Trotsky in his History of the Russian Revolution,
> nor Lenin in his various writing mentions that the Petrograd and Moscow
> Soviets during the 1905 or 1917 period, and particularly under Kerensky,
> pushed for "growth" "development" and "infrastructure" rather than
> articulate sharpening terms of class struggle. Can you imagine what might
> have happened if instead of "All Power to the Soviets," the watchword, the
> condensation of the program for revolution had been "Create two, three,
> trans-Siberian Railroads!" "All Power to Infrastructure Investment!"
Where on this planet is currently the question of power so acutely
in Russia in 1905 or even more in 1917?
Are there "consejos" for example in Argentina, which are about to
power in their own hands?
Is there a major political upheaval in China, which poses
immediately the question of political power?
Oh, I forgot, the question of political power is irrelevant to
But, by the way, the Petersburg Soviet did also not discuss
motions like "Down with commodity relations!" or so. On the other
hand it might have discussed trivia like street lighting. True is
that the _historical_ turning points remembered by the historians are
those referring to _political_ _power_ (and not the immediate
severing of commodity relations and the revocation of the law of
value), of forming a _workers_ _and_ _farmers_ _government,_ which
the Soviet was, except that it had not yet taken central state power.
More information about the Marxism