Re: [OPE] question re published letters Engels

From: Paul Cockshott <>
Date: Mon May 11 2009 - 09:05:03 EDT

>> The onus however is not on me to prove anything - Mr Bettelheim and Mr
>> Chattopadhyay themselves flipflopped from characterising the Russian
>> revolution as a proletarian revolution and then subsequently defining it as
>> a fullfledged bourgeois revolution, even although the Russian bourgeoisie
>> was expropriated and liquidated. Mr Bettelheim does this in the course of
>> the same multi-volume book!
>> I think this is absurd, and I think it is even more absurd, that there
>> should still be people who are still in awe and reverence of this kind of
>> "scholarship". The apparently "super-radical" analysis of the "value-form"
>> by "Marxist authorities" has the result, that these Marxists cannot even
>> decide what the real class forces in a real revolution are, and do a 180
>> degrees turn in their analysis!
> Jurriaan:
> The full force of your criticism is not directed at the *source* of this
> claim concerning the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. As you should
> know very well, Bettelheim was only re-broadcasting the perspective of Mao
> and Maoism on this topic.
No Bettleheims position was quite different from that of the CPC, though
obviously the latter had influenced him.
  The CPC line was that the USSR was a proletarian revolution until
changes introduced in the 60s by Kruschov.
ope mailing list
Received on Mon May 11 09:12:17 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT