[lbo-talk] China

[T Fast]

Depends on how revolution is defined.  Bourgeois revos seem to be fairly 
enduring (eg., the US revo).  Even classifying China as a failed revo is 
pretty misleading and a bad theory/description of history.  Try to imagine 
China as it is today without the Revo.  It cant be done, so in that sense 
the revo is permanent.

Also we should consider revos that do not fit neatly into the 
capitalist/socialist dicohtomy such as national liberation struggles against 
colonial rule.  Hard to argue that those places in which former colonial 
rule was smashed were not revolutions.

I think qualitative, and careful historical analysis are th way to go.  But 
then how hard is it to refute the true by defintion "shit happens school of 
history."

Travis


> Do you agree with Carrol's assertion that most revolutions 'lose'? I ask 
> because it sounds as though it might be subject to statistical analysis.
>
> Martin
>
> On Sep 23, 2004, at 4:02 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> Wow, an early approximation of an answer. So the failure is just one of 
>> those things? It had nothing to do with China's level of development or 
>> the structure of the Chinese CP? Nothing to be learned for the future? Is 
>> this just another way of saying shit happens?
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk