Tommy4ever
3rd June 2011, 20:08
I was just reading Paul Frolich's biography of Rosa Luxemburg when I cam across an odly appropriate passage in reference to the 1905 Russian Revolution:
The social-democratic right-wing revealed a symptomatic inability to undrestand the problems of the Russian Revolution. Its spokesmen were, of course, enthusiastic about it, but although they prided themselves on their Marxism, they were unable to interpret the revolution in terms of class struggle. They regarded it as an outgrowth of the 'Russian soil'. They justified it only as an exceptional case, as a struggle against a despotic regime, for they felt that such a struggle would be senseless in a constitutional society resting on a secure legal basis. In other words, they were saying that the Russian Revolution was merely an interesting spectacle for European democrats and they did not have to draw any conclusions from it about their own future.
Just replace a handful of choice words ...
The liberals revealed a symptomatic inability to undrestand the problems of the Arab Revolutions. Its spokesmen were, of course, enthusiastic about it, but although they prided themselves on their democracy, they were unable to interpret the revolution in terms of class struggle. They regarded it as an outgrowth of the 'Middle Eastern soil'. They justified it only as an exceptional case, as a struggle against a despotic regime, for they felt that such a struggle would be senseless in a constitutional society resting on a secure legal basis. In other words, they were saying that the Arab Revolutions was merely an interesting spectacle for European democrats and they did not have to draw any conclusions from it about their own future.
... and you have a concise analysis of the liberal position on the Arab Revolutions.
I know this is a pretty pointless thread. I just find it interesting how hitory repeats itself.
The social-democratic right-wing revealed a symptomatic inability to undrestand the problems of the Russian Revolution. Its spokesmen were, of course, enthusiastic about it, but although they prided themselves on their Marxism, they were unable to interpret the revolution in terms of class struggle. They regarded it as an outgrowth of the 'Russian soil'. They justified it only as an exceptional case, as a struggle against a despotic regime, for they felt that such a struggle would be senseless in a constitutional society resting on a secure legal basis. In other words, they were saying that the Russian Revolution was merely an interesting spectacle for European democrats and they did not have to draw any conclusions from it about their own future.
Just replace a handful of choice words ...
The liberals revealed a symptomatic inability to undrestand the problems of the Arab Revolutions. Its spokesmen were, of course, enthusiastic about it, but although they prided themselves on their democracy, they were unable to interpret the revolution in terms of class struggle. They regarded it as an outgrowth of the 'Middle Eastern soil'. They justified it only as an exceptional case, as a struggle against a despotic regime, for they felt that such a struggle would be senseless in a constitutional society resting on a secure legal basis. In other words, they were saying that the Arab Revolutions was merely an interesting spectacle for European democrats and they did not have to draw any conclusions from it about their own future.
... and you have a concise analysis of the liberal position on the Arab Revolutions.
I know this is a pretty pointless thread. I just find it interesting how hitory repeats itself.