[Marxism] National liberation and Bolshevism reexamined: A view from the borderlands,

Andrew Pollack acpollack2 at gmail.com
Wed May 21 08:32:48 MDT 2014


That's as may be. But then why did none of these other parties in the
borderlands, which Eric says were so advanced politically on both class and
nation, and so big, why did none of them lead a revolution in their own
nation?


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM, DW <dwaltersmia at gmail.com> wrote:

> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
>
>
> Eric's is actually arguing the opposite of what Andy says. Eric argued
> that the Bolsheviks were key to leading socialist revolutions, but
> that
> their weakness on the national question and in the borderlands
> prevented them from doing so in the non-Russian areas.
>
> You need to think about this. The Red Army brought victory for the
> USSR by 1921...but the Bolsheviks didn't "lead" any such
> revolution...it was militarily imposed on the border lands of the now,
> USSR. The Bolsheviks *failed* to lead a revolution there because they
> were ethnically divided and ghettoized from the masses of peasants and
> others who were not Russian. This is not a 'what if' scenario but an
> assessment of the *failure* of the Bolsheviks national policies.
>
> --David
> ________________________________________________
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com
>



More information about the Marxism mailing list