> CB: Why don't you think Marxist ideology will ever be the sort of force it was once ?
> andie: Do you really want to get into this?
> CB: You mean because we have more important things to talk about on this list ?
Yes. I don't see the point of this sort of very long tewrm prognostication or guessing what the shape of resistance movements will be in a century (or three).
> CB: There historical ebb and flow. I think since Marxism is basically a true assessment of the reality of capitalism,
Yes
> it has lots of potential to revive in generations that have not been propagandized and involved in anti-communist, anti-Soviet, anti-China, Korea, Viet Namese, Cuban crusades.
Perhaps, But I don't think truth is enough. In the meantime, Marxism asa movement is dead or dormant.
> Liberal democracy doesn't have much appeal among working masses, given they have extensive experience that it is a monumental sham. I wouldn't be holding out much hope that it is going to catch on more readily than some Next-Marxism.
Well, LD has never been popular in America, at least the extensive civil and political rights part. But the fact is that the institutions of LD exist and are pretty strongly entrenched,a nd it's not politically popular to oppose it.
> CB: Wait until the next round of economic failures of capitalism really kick in. Look at Argentina, Venezuela. The masses there are brainwashed about the economic "failures" of Communism. Of course, an objective look at the whole history of Communism would show gigantic economic successes and the impact of capitalist military aggression of a world historic hugeness. Sober thinkers in the future will be able to weigh this out accurately.
Maybe, but I am not a catastrophist, and I don't think that a capialist collapse will lead to a revival of Marxism without strong Marxist parties,w hich right now we have not got.
> CB: Of course, the U.S. had anti-socialist, anti-anarcho-syndicalist, anti-union laws. Nor was there actual freedom of speech, etc. When one looks honestly at U.S. history , legal reality even in 20th Century, it's not very much of a liberal democracy either.
It's still an aspiration.
> CB: I didn't say the LD caused wars. I said capitalism caused the wars, and liberal democracy was profoundly corrupted by the capitalism that is concommitant with it in actual history, so corrupted that basically there is no actually existing liberal democracy in history.
Not fully existing, but these things are all ideal types.
I can't think of a case in the last 150 years where an LD made war on another. Can you?
> CB: No. How does that cut in what we are talking about ? Basically that means that these fake ass LD's have been waging wars on colonies. That merely corroborates what I am trying to say here - not that the abstract "LD-ness" causes war, but that whatever "LD-ness" there is has been substantially and increasingly negated by the capitalism that is ALWAYS with the "LD-ness".
Limited LDs are not "fake," jsut partial. And it matters, because if LDs, however limited, don't make war on each other, it reduced the likelihood of war if we can spread even limited LD-hood. i mean, by example and persuasion, not by force.
jks
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030426/019b9ab0/attachment.htm>