HOWEVER I hasten to add that the degree of centralization required to realize these two aims will demonstrate the historical preparedness of the proletariat---and capitalism as the proletariat finds it---when assuming power. The more centralization is needed---to fight numerous opportunists and enemies of socialism, for example---the less the historical timing for socialism would seem to be propitious for the socialization of the means of production. In short, when the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of proletarian elements have the class consciousness required to ACHIEVE socialism, less centralism will be required to realize their aims.
Well, I'm glad you noticed that paragraph.
: Well this is a Big "However" and one worth addressing.
Agreed.
: As you know, my interest is in Marx's concept of alienation. Lenin of course was quite aware of this but his actions gradually led to conditions permitting the installation of Stalin...
Let us pause and reflect that when Lenin died (1924), the Soviet system was STILL democractic.
It took Stalin (and his goons) at least five years to destroy that (1929)...
: A revolution might be like heaving a boulder up a cliff face. There is the danger it wouldn't quite make the top and come crashing down squash. There is an advantage to reformism in that the weight can be incrementally lifted with a jack, and if it slips, it just goes down a notch.
Ah, Bill, we Americans have had 'reformism' since 1777.
Considering the property relations of this country, we've gotten almost NOWHERE.
As a matter of fact, as this century closes, many of the gains of the first half have been dissolved.
If you don't like revolution, then just pull that lever on November...
None.
