>a truly capitalist system
>can reproduce itself (which is not to sya that it does not exploit >those
>who provide labour power for that reproduction) - and that makes all >the
>difference vis a vis quasi-feudal systems such as tsarist Russia.
Yes, but it can't reproduce itself perfectly or indefinitely. Business cycles show that, as well as the appearances of bubbles, gluts, and crashes (productive capitl and paper), no?
>a revolution (i.e. breakdown of the governance system) is essentially >a
>phenomenon of rural societies (such as Russia or China) ruled by >backward
>elites that failed to keep up with modernization.
That's a revolution? Breakdown of the governance system? That's a pretty "bony" definition, too thin and stringy by far. Where does the new beginning come in? Where does significant change come in?
As for it being a rural phenomenon, was the Roman Revolution "rural"?
>The bottom line is that Russia and China collapsed not because of
>capitalism but because of the lack of it. More specifically, the
>backward quasi-feudal regimes were literally destroyed by foreign >powers
>(Germany and Japan) - which created an opportunity for a >revolution.
Lenin wasn't talking about capitalism per se, so far as what the quote seems to say. As for Trotsky, his words echo yours about the system being overloaded and then collapsing. That overload created a space in which revolution could be advanced. Capitalism, by its very nature, creates spaces that have revolutionary potential, no? And wasn't that what Yoshie was asking about: where are the weakest links today ie where would the next spaces open up sufficiently wide?
>In fact, there has been not a single communit revolution in an
>industrial democracy - all such revolutions took place in backward,
>rural societies which further underscore their essentially peasant
>character. The only "revolutionary" force that managed to subvert an
>industrial democracy is fascism. With that track record, praying for a
>revolutionary overthrow of a capitalist society is a scary thing,
>indeed.
Are you making an argument here wrt cause and effect? No peasant background in the society = no chance of communist revolution? That logic doesn't fly.
As for Fascism, it didn't subvert bourgeois democracy so much as take advantage of its chronic weakness (capitalism) and have more (and more powerful) allies on its side than Communism.
Yoshie, I'll put a tentative bet on South America as the next "hot spot". Time and money will tell, of course.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail