Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 2:09:09 GMT -3
It is False to Maintain That the Ussr Entered This War in . It Did So in , Invading Poland in Collusion With Germany. What Determines Whether a Social Group Constitutes a Class is Its Participation or Not, as Such, in the Class Struggle (It is the Thesis of the Primacy of the Class Struggle Over Classes). What Determines Whether a Power is Imperialist is Its Participation as Such or Not in the Struggle for a New Division of the World Among the Great Imperialist Powers. Maintaining That the Ussr Was Not Imperialist Was Equivalent to Maintaining That the New Division of the World and the War Itself Were Not Imperialist or That.
Participating in the Imperialist Division of the World Did Not Mean Being an Imperialist Power. However, in the Current Where I Was Active, It Was Believed That After One of the Most Gigantic, Murderous and Even Genocidal Counterrevolutions in the History of Humanity, Which Was the Stalinist One, the Ussr Was More Progressive Than Capitalist Societies to the UK Mobile Database Extent That That Capitalism Had Not Been Restored in It. This Supposedly Preserved an Achievement of the October Revolution: the Abolition of Private Property. But the is Not Decided by the Forms of Property but by Relations of Exploitation – or Relations of Non-exploitation, in a.
Classless Society. In the S, When the True Dimensions of This Counterrevolution and the Terrible Quagmires and Historical Impasses to Which It Led on the Social, Economic, Political and Cultural Levels Were Not Known or Imagined, Such an Error Was Explainable. But Over Time It Stopped Being That Way. Why Then Did My Current, as Did Many Other Currents of the Western Radical Left, Cling, Against All Odds of History, to a Completely Anachronistic Thesis? It Seems to Me That There Were Essentially Two Reasons. The First Was Quite Obvious: the Alienation of This Left in the Face of the Realities and Lived Stories That Weigh on the Conscience of Those Who Experience Them and Make Social Theories or Theories of History Tend to Adapt to Them. The Western Left Did Not "Live" Eastern Europe.
Participating in the Imperialist Division of the World Did Not Mean Being an Imperialist Power. However, in the Current Where I Was Active, It Was Believed That After One of the Most Gigantic, Murderous and Even Genocidal Counterrevolutions in the History of Humanity, Which Was the Stalinist One, the Ussr Was More Progressive Than Capitalist Societies to the UK Mobile Database Extent That That Capitalism Had Not Been Restored in It. This Supposedly Preserved an Achievement of the October Revolution: the Abolition of Private Property. But the is Not Decided by the Forms of Property but by Relations of Exploitation – or Relations of Non-exploitation, in a.
Classless Society. In the S, When the True Dimensions of This Counterrevolution and the Terrible Quagmires and Historical Impasses to Which It Led on the Social, Economic, Political and Cultural Levels Were Not Known or Imagined, Such an Error Was Explainable. But Over Time It Stopped Being That Way. Why Then Did My Current, as Did Many Other Currents of the Western Radical Left, Cling, Against All Odds of History, to a Completely Anachronistic Thesis? It Seems to Me That There Were Essentially Two Reasons. The First Was Quite Obvious: the Alienation of This Left in the Face of the Realities and Lived Stories That Weigh on the Conscience of Those Who Experience Them and Make Social Theories or Theories of History Tend to Adapt to Them. The Western Left Did Not "Live" Eastern Europe.