[lbo-talk] Eric Hobsbawm

[Wojtek S]

Carrol, I understand that you have vision problems, but it appears
that you have reading comprehension problems as well.  I specifically
said that if we theorize social change, we should consider revo as a
last resort solution when everything else fails.  In other words, if
we hypothesize solutions to social problems, revo is not a good
hypothesis.  Nowhere did I say that I want to predict a revo as you
claim (let alone launch one, which is absurd on its face) since revos
are the most idiosyncratic of all historical events, and thus
fundamentally unpredictable.

This of course, did not stop writers like Gramsci (if you bother to
read them) from trying to explain why actually attempted revos
succeeded in one place (Russia)  but failed in another (Germany,
Italy) - which is a very different proposition than trying to predict
one apriori.  We may agree or disagree with their explanations, but ex
post facto analysis of actual events is a legitimate intellectual
endeavor.

-- 
Wojtek

"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."