Thirsty Crow
30th September 2010, 12:43
If this forum had a sub-forum called "Psychology of Revolutionary Theory and Practice", this thread would work very well in it.
But it does not, so I think that the best place to discuss issues I will outline is Theory.
What I'm interested in is the theoretical practice of finding a socialist country/regime/government which is then used in representation of what socialism should and could entail, in dire circumstances of imperialism and capitalist encirclement.
For instance, people go so far as to defend North Korea, not only against imperialist aggression (a defence I would gladly uphold), but also as a socialist country, despite some clear facts that deny the existence of actual workers' control over the economy and the decision making process.
There are at least two question I would like to raise, in the form of hypotheses which could be and need not be affirmed:
1) the operational definition of capitalism implied by this defence is invalid since it mistakenly identifies capitalist relations of production with a geographically limited area, thus making it possible to conclude that these relations have been abolished in a single country
2) this defence also entails an insistence on a historical precedent which alone can account for revolutionary activity here and today. As such, it also falls into a trap of providing concrete evidence for a historically validated possibility of achieving socialism. In other words, this defence enters the playing field of the bourgeois "show me that it works without serious flaws and I'll concede".
Discuss.
But it does not, so I think that the best place to discuss issues I will outline is Theory.
What I'm interested in is the theoretical practice of finding a socialist country/regime/government which is then used in representation of what socialism should and could entail, in dire circumstances of imperialism and capitalist encirclement.
For instance, people go so far as to defend North Korea, not only against imperialist aggression (a defence I would gladly uphold), but also as a socialist country, despite some clear facts that deny the existence of actual workers' control over the economy and the decision making process.
There are at least two question I would like to raise, in the form of hypotheses which could be and need not be affirmed:
1) the operational definition of capitalism implied by this defence is invalid since it mistakenly identifies capitalist relations of production with a geographically limited area, thus making it possible to conclude that these relations have been abolished in a single country
2) this defence also entails an insistence on a historical precedent which alone can account for revolutionary activity here and today. As such, it also falls into a trap of providing concrete evidence for a historically validated possibility of achieving socialism. In other words, this defence enters the playing field of the bourgeois "show me that it works without serious flaws and I'll concede".
Discuss.