>We are not talking about some abstract point in the future but the
>ability to generate suplus here and now and convert it into military
>advantage. US may be doomed, say 100 years form now, but that offers
>little consolation to those who face the imminent bomanrdment by USAF
>today. The same applied to Russia and China 100 years ago.
I wasn't talking about some abstract point in the future either; I was responding to your comment:
>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.
You talk about a "truly capitalist system". By this I assumed you meant the system as embedded in a society totally governed by market relations and private property ownership (hence "truly"). Even the US is far from a "truly capitalist system" though it's the closest country to that point, I think, and still trying to reach that heavenly state. So there is no capitalist system that can perfectly reproduce itself indefinitely at any time, although there are better and worse/more likely and less likely times for that to happen in such a way as to culminate in a revolution (not neccessarily an armed one, either). There will always be cracks in the monolith that could be used to lever a piece off and, hopefully, with luck and good work, bring it down.
>Yes. I do not buy revolutionary eschatology, if you will. In my mind,
>revolution is but a menas to an end - or at least it seemed so 100 >years
>ago. Today we know that countries that did not use that means (e.g.
>Sweden) got closer to the socialist ideals than countries that did(e.g.
>Russia).
I don't think there _must_ be a parousia either. Armed revolution is one road to follow, one that I don't think will happen in North America any time soon (but the chance is always there, given capitalism's behaviour, among other things).
>From what Chris Doss has said about Russia, they had achieved some pretty
good stuff.
I'm familiar with Sweden's reputation for socialism, and I like what I hear about it. Why do you think it went the way it did? I don't know my Swedish history, I'm afraid. And BTW: isn't Sweden supposedly whittling away it's socialist policies?
And did Sweden do away with capitalist relations altogether? I usually envision it as a bastion of social democracy a la Canada's National Democratic Party (NDP)(whose most famous and revered leader, ED Broadbent, BTW, said, "I support profit making." I was sitting about five feet from him when he said it in public).
>>As for it being a rural phenomenon, was the Roman Revolution "rural"?
>?
I'm arguing that a revolution doesn't have to have only a rural character to it. You and those authors you cited were talking in generalities, right?
You said:
>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.
>In other words, the masses on their own will create nothing as
>examples of Afghanistan or Ethiopia clearly illustrate - they need
>institutional framnework (yes, the infamous vanguard party, inter alia)
>to create a new social order.
Ok, I agree basically with this, although I don't think a single vanguard party is needed.
>Yes, And I think my post hinted the answer - the means is parliamentary
>democracy. And the opportunity? I am still betting on that old bitch
>Europe when confronted by the US aggression. I do not see it happening
>here - if thegoing gets tough (e.g. European competition, ecological
>disaster, whatever) this country is likely to descend to some form of
>totalitarianism or better yet, split into several pieces.
"_A_ means is parliamentary democracy", right?
As for Europe . . . maybe. North American capitalists and their representatives aren't going batshit about Europe like they are about South America. What little I do hear about socialism in Europe puts me too much in mind of the NDP here.
>>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.
>That is correct, except that I used the term "communist revolution as >we
>know it" (i.e. Russian or Chinese style). I think advanced >democtracies
>will achieve socialism by different than a peasant rebellion means(such
>as parliamentary coalitions).
You didn't use the term, "communist revolution as we know it". All you pointed out was that pre-Revolutionary Russia and China collapsed mainly because of the rulers' inability to modernize, allowing the Communists to step into the vacancy. You hinted pretty broadly about the neccessity for peasants for a revolution, and I just don't follow your logic here: no peasants = no revolution. Maybe we're crossing wires on the word "revolution"?
>They <South American countries TRA> had their chance in the 1960s and 197s
>when
>they could get considerable international support for their struggle,
>but they did not get very far. My bet is, again, Europe - but they
>change will come there more peacefully as it did in Sweden in the >1930s
That's why I said "tentatively"; I don't predict the future.
As for Europe . . . . <Gallic shrug> Who knows? But I'd be even more hesitant to put money on them than I am on South America.
Maybe without "pax interrupta" by a world war, we'll see some real lasting changes.
Then again, given capitalism's proclivities, maybe not.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail