I want to take up to a point Lonelondoner made in the discussion of class struggle at yesterdays day of discussion
He said something like the waves of struggles in places like turkey brazil Greece in the last few years happened because of the collapse of the USSR in 1989 This seemed a bit extreme to me at the time and Ok I was criticising the idea of 1980s as ‘Years of Truth’ but I would agree that the collapse of an imperialist bloc must have consequences for subsequent events and the subsequent period.
It was also suggested later that 1989 was a result of class struggle in the eastern bloc itself whereas I would ascribe the collapse as a result of the need of the USSR to gain computing and communication technologies
Its just that I don’t understand the idea that the most noteworthy factor in the recent wave of struggles is the collapse of the USSR (which is how it came over to me) Is this what was meant and it occurs to me to ask if it was meant as a positive factor in encouraging struggle or as a negative factor in hindering it
I understand that some parts of the B make use of the idea that ‘communism was bad and did not work anyway ‘ is used to try to prevent workers struggle but I would have thought that that the ongoing existence of the USSR would have been a stronger ideological argument against workers struggle. It didn’t however prevent class struggles of the 60s-80s.
Anyway Id appreciate some more explanation of what was said