JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> Carroll here adopts the Menshevik position (and that of early-to-mid Marx,
> pre "Russian road") that socialism, or anything that might be recognizable as
> such, is impossible in less economically develped nations; it is bonly on the
> basis of a highly developed capitalism that a socialism that is one of
> freedom and abundance can be built. That may be true; it is arguably one of
> the lessons of the 20th century experiments.
[Spelling Note: one "L" only.]
I would roughly agree with Justin here, but I didn't intend my post to operate at quite such a high level of theoretical abstraction. The historical positions of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. that Justin sketches offer more than one route of further development.
Carrol