Log in

View Full Version : Bourgeoisie populists turning radical



Dimentio
9th February 2008, 21:08
I wonder how many examples there are in history of politicians who have risen in bourgeoisie establishment parties and then suddenly turned into hate-figures for the establishment for taking down old institutions and increasing the influence and prosperity for those with least income?

Could such politicians turn socialist? I was thinking of Huey Long (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbyMeMApC3U) and his "each man a king"-programme which would have been a really progressive step if enacted.

erupt
11th February 2008, 01:28
It's quite possible. How many American presidents have stated things they want to do when they are out campaigning and do none of what they've said they will do (regardless of what they said.)

Why couldn't someone campaign as a normal elitist politician but then actually enact progressive acts and other things. This would be almost like a sneaky social democrat attempt at some baby steps toward socialism.

Dimentio
11th February 2008, 06:53
It's quite possible. How many American presidents have stated things they want to do when they are out campaigning and do none of what they've said they will do (regardless of what they said.)

Why couldn't someone campaign as a normal elitist politician but then actually enact progressive acts and other things. This would be almost like a sneaky social democrat attempt at some baby steps toward socialism.

I do think that for example Huey Long or Hugo Chavèz are examples of such politicians.

renegadoe
11th February 2008, 08:08
Youse clearly do not understand that being determines consciousness.

Keep waiting around for your "savior"! :laugh:

FireFry
11th February 2008, 12:05
You clearly do not understand that ecological strength determines being.

Led Zeppelin
11th February 2008, 12:21
Robespierre.

Holden Caulfield
11th February 2008, 12:36
Youse clearly do not understand that being determines consciousness.



in that case what about Lenin, Marx, Engels, Castro, Guevara etc etc.. fuck even Tony Benn, their being surely didnt determine their consciousness

Led Zeppelin
11th February 2008, 13:08
The above all left behind their past class-background, with perhaps the exception of Engels. However, that is irrelevant, how many Marxists like Engels exist today? If you count more than zero you're wrong.

What is inherent in all the "bourgeois populists turned radical" is that all of them failed.

erupt
11th February 2008, 23:42
What is inherent in all the "bourgeois populists turned radical" is that all of them failed.
Your one hundred percent right. At least an attempt was made.

Dimentio
12th February 2008, 00:30
The above all left behind their past class-background, with perhaps the exception of Engels. However, that is irrelevant, how many Marxists like Engels exist today? If you count more than zero you're wrong.

What is inherent in all the "bourgeois populists turned radical" is that all of them failed.

Most revolutions has failed in one sense or the other, and you might be aware of that. Ten steps forward, seven backwards.

Led Zeppelin
12th February 2008, 15:00
Yes but they failed for other reasons and at other stages of development.

What, are you saying that we should just wait around hoping for some "nice bourgeois populist" to turn radical?

They failed when they ran into the limits of capitalism. They were not revolutionary, they were reformist, and failure is inherent in reformism, as the history of any reformist movement with "radical intentions" shows.

Dimentio
12th February 2008, 15:15
Yes but they failed for other reasons and at other stages of development.

What, are you saying that we should just wait around hoping for some "nice bourgeois populist" to turn radical?

They failed when they ran into the limits of capitalism. They were not revolutionary, they were reformist, and failure is inherent in reformism, as the history of any reformist movement with "radical intentions" shows.

I have not said that we should wait for such a politician. Why this sensitivity?

Led Zeppelin
12th February 2008, 15:26
When reformism is implied, sensitivity is a necessity.

It seemed as though you were reproaching revolutionary activity in favor of reformist activity when you pointed out that "most revolutions have failed in one way or other".

If that was not the case I apologize, though I'm not sure what else it could have meant.