> shag: ...so that, if the proles take power merely to "win"
> and not sanctioned in The Name of Justice that is bigger and beyond
> mere human nature, etc., then this is a troubling possiblity indeed.
>
> Somebody: How can you say things like this *now* after all the bloody
> events of the 20th century? It isn't the case that it's only the
> bourgeoisie that has blood on it's hands anymore. Let's be real. The
> Great Purges and Cultural Revolution weren't just capitalist
> propaganda.
>
> I just can't understand this lack of reflectiveness on the part of the
> left. Do you really think it doesn't matter if the "proles" have any
> code of ethic when they seize power? Really? Is it all just the
> unfolding of the dialectic? Does human agency not matter?
>
> And frankly, even as a practical matter, you're never going to
> convince the workers and soldiers councils to seize power if you're
> oblivious to repeating the same brutalities as the last go around.
> There's a reason why the Thai masses aren't battling right now for
> socialism, but are fighting and risking their lives instead for good
> old fashioned bourgeois democracy. Or why the Nepalese Maoists only
> succeeded in establishing a capitalist republic. It's in part because
> people are scared of bloody minded would-be apparatchiks who argue all
> that matters is "winning".
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)