>Bertell Ollman writes:
>
>Many writers, of course, have interpreted these events as the demise >not
>only of particular regimes and forms of social organization but >of the
>Marxist world view to which, at least verbally, their leaders >seemed so
>attached. Leaving aside such obviously important questions >as whether and
>to what extent these regimes were socialist, let
>alone Marxist, I would just like to point out that the most striking
>feature of all the social explosions of the past few years -- and
>remarked upon by virtually every observer -- is just how unexpected >they
>were. What existed before, however one evaluated it, was taken >as given
>and unchanging; just as most people treat the situation that >has emerged
>as a new given and equally unchanging. It is the same >mistake that was
>made in 1789, again in 1848 and again in 1917. These >revolutions, too,
>surprised almost everyone, and as soon as they >happened almost everyone
>alive at the time thought -- wrongly -- that >they were over.
> _Dialectical Investigations_, p. 3
>
>Now all those events were preceded by an immense amount of >"organizing and
>education," but not one of those doing the >"organizing and education" had
>the least idea of what they were >organizing and educating for.
>
>Carrol
Without the organizing and education, however, these and other revolutions would have never occurred. They were indispensable and ultimately the decisive factors.
>P.S. I accepted your term "education," but in a number of ways it is
>quite wrong, two in particular.
>
>1. Who will educate the educator?
By 'education' I was suggesting a dynamic process through which activists and non-activists alike learn from one another and their own experiences.
Cheers, Joseph
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.