[lbo-talk] Eric Hobsbawm

[Carrol Cox]

You have some reading difficulties yourself. I argued that revolutions did
not result from anyone "considering revolution as a solution." That means
that arguing over whether or not we 'should consider' revolution is an empty
argument. I'm not interested in arguing that we _should_ make a revolution,
and hence arguments against such consideration are pointless.

Carrol


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On
> Behalf Of Wojtek S
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:48 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Eric Hobsbawm
> 
> 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."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk