Mike Ballard wrote:
>
> CB: But Marx did predict a transitional phase or first phase of
> communism that was not full communism . . . .
>
> *************************
> Agreed. I'm not saying that the revolution was a total failure. What I'm trying to understand is why socialism never developed.
I think you ask the wrong question. (As does Charles: the USSR did not correspond to any idea of a transitional stage: it was a dead end -- but I still want to defend it.)
The correct question is: Why has the struggle for socialism been so strong and achieved so much under conditions which made _any_ achievement so unlikely?
The USSR, the PRC, Cuba were all minor meracles! Their achievements are the Midnight Special Leadbelly celebrated. They shine a light on us! Instead of endless kvetching re their failure to achieve what was simply not achievable at the time focus on what _we_ have to do now.
Carrol