[Marxism] No such thing as a bourgeois revolution?
shmage at pipeline.com
Mon Apr 29 19:45:37 MDT 2013
On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:
> "Of course Mustafa Kemal led a bourgeois revolution even though
> there was no bourgeoisie. His goal was to create one."
> Theoretically this connects to another important question, namely
> how to describe the Chinese revolution in which the proletariat was
> even less of a factor than the bourgeoisie was in Turkey. But you
> can pretty much say the same thing. "Mao Zedong led a proletarian
> revolution in China even though there was no proletariat to speak
> of. His goal was to create a proletariat."
Exactly. Lacking a bourgeoisie, Ataturk can be said to have carried
out a bourgeois revolution because he created a capitalist state ruled
by capitalists. Likewise Mao, lacking a proletariat, can be said to
have carried out a proletarian revolution because he created a
capitalist state ruled by Communists(tm).
"scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying
More information about the Marxism