Stoller: Funny, you mention two socialist states that were elected as well as easily overthrown by capitalist interests. See any correlation there?: Funny that because I recall you producing the exact election information on Russia prior to the Bolshevik Putsch, as part of an attempt to legitimise that Putsch if I recall correctly, what's the difference between the electionering of capitalists and the electionering of the bolsheviks in 1916? Arent they both by your definition equally borgousie?
There's a world of difference between a recently liberated FEUDAL / PEASANT nation experiencing 'bourgeois democracy' for the first time (such as Russia in 1917) and an OLD CAPITALIST nation that has experienced 'bourgeois democracy' for CENTURIES (such as the U.S. IN 2000). Tactics are different for these two very different historical situations. One set of people believe in such things as polls and elections; the other has learned to know better.
There WERE similarities between Russia and the two South American countries, similarities outlined above.
The difference between the Bolsheviks and the two elected socialist countries in South America, however, is that the Bolsheviks were able to defend their state whereas the two South American states were not.
Conclusion: socialists need more than ballots, they need fire-power and people willing to fight for socialism. Ultimately, that's what decides success or failure in the world arena.
