^^^^^^^
> CB: It seems to me that the purpose of this recurrent thread on Stalin, Stalinism, mass killings, the Gulag is to contribute toward making a judgment as to what we or one on the left is "for" today and in the future.
Yes
> Does the history of socialist systems that have actually existed prove that practice of Marxist ideology inherently leads to something that is not OK ? That is , of course, the bourgeois claim. Or maybe Justin suggests that we need a heavy dose of liberal ideology combined with Marxism to avoid things being not-OK ?
I wouldn't put it that way, or accept that way of framing the question. Marxist ideology doesn't "inherently" lead to one thing rather than another. And the material conditions that determine which outcome occurs in a situation can't be fixed merely by adding another ideology to the mix. I also don't think that Marxist ideology will ever the sort of force ir was once, so the question si in that sense somewhat stale.
> However, Justin, what about the fact that the history of actually existing liberal societies has been terribly not OK - genocidal usurpation of the Western Hemisphere, and other areas of the earth, African slave trade, general colonialism, World Wars, enormous poverty, ecological destruction, other stuff , inveterate aggressive warmaking right up to today in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq ?
Right, though you don't have full blown liberal democracy until the 20th century. Be that as it may, I don't think that liberal democracy is a cure for all that ails us, just for some of it. I don't attribute the Iraq war to liberal democracy -- rather to its failure, since in a proper liberal democracy the courts don't appoint the executive! We disagree on a lot, you and I, but we agree, I think on this, that many if not all of these awful things you mention are due to capitalism, not to lib dem. Recall taht I define lib dem as" universal suffrage, competritive elections, and extensive civil and political liberties. It's hard to see hwo any of those, or all in combination, leads to world wars, etc.
> Everybody wants "democracy", but if and when the People really have gotten and get Power, it is not clear that their initial rule might not be infinitely more angry and harsh and vengeful ( "irrational" even) than we of the scribbling class ( and I include myself in that) have in our paternalism dared imagined. Perhaps Marx knew this when he formulated the "revolutionary _dictatorship_ of the proletariat".
As Hal Draper has documented at tedious length, that is not what Marx meant. And if it were, I'd oppose it. I think it is silly to say that it is paternalist to oppose a vengeful bloodbath in in oneself and one's children may be murdered. If you really think that is what we are in for, explain to me why progressive intellectuals should support this?
jks
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030421/4e515dbf/attachment.htm>