inversion

[bart-leby]

I came across this sentence:



Not only had the Soviet Union not had a proletariat revolution, but the Soviet Union lacked the essential component in having one; they lacked an actual proletariat.



Even if I think that I am able to understand this meaning, I am not sure about its grammar. Why is there used twice the word "had" in the first part. Why is not sufficient just Not only had the Soviet Union a proletariat revolution…? Is it that for the purpose of emphasizing?

 

[Tdol]

It is the past perfect of the verb have- had had. If you wanted to use the past, it would be Not only did the Soviet Union have....

 

[Raymott]

"Not only had the Soviet Union a proletariat revolution" is the opposite of "Not only had the Soviet Union not had a proletariat revolution".
What this is saying is "The Soviet Union did not have a proletarian revolution. Not only that, it didn't even have a proletariat."

The argument is probably that the proletariat, for what it was, had nothing to do with the revolution, which was set off by a bunch of students who had probably never done a day's honest work in their lives.

 

[MikeNewYork]

But the sentence says that the Soviet Union did not a have a proletariat, which is impossible.

 

[Tdol]

Maybe it's overstating the shortage of numbers a bit.

 

[Raymott]

Whatever the sentence is doing, you can't say an interpretation is wrong simply because that would make something impossible.
"Pigs can fly" is a sentence with a meaning which can be explained no matter how unlikely or impossible it is.
One would have to know the author of the original sentence and the context in which it was written to be able to analyse it correctly, but one tires after the first half a dozen requests for context after logging on.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes, but grammatical sentences that are clearly false can be criticized.

 

[Raymott]

Yes, but grammatical sentences that are clearly false can be criticized.

But there's no context by which to base any criticism. It could a joke. It could be an example of a bad history thesis. It could be, as I implied, someone who is downplaying, hyperbolically, the role of the proletariat in the Russian Revolution.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes, and it could simply be false. I would go with that.

 

[emsr2d2]

We won't have much to do on this site if we only agree to look at, criticise, consider pieces of writing which are well-written and factual.

 

[Jaskin]

Hi,
Please note I'm not a teacher nor a native speaker.

[...] lacked an actual proletariat.
Isn't the word actual here the clue where the author of that sentence is going with it ?

Cheers

 

[MikeNewYork]

What is the difference between an "actual" proletariat and a proletariat? I am using the definition of proletariat here.

 

[Jaskin]

Hi,
Please note I'm not a teacher nor a native speaker.

I can't answer your question. As for me the usage of the word actual indicates that in the writers mind there is a difference. If he can argue that convincingly and makes any points in making such statements we can tell; discussing it without having remaining text is rather impossible.

Cheers

 

[Tdol]

What is the difference between an "actual" proletariat and a proletariat? I am using the definition of proletariat here.

Couldn't it be the numbers? Wasn't Leninism a break with Marxism because it involved a small highly organised political group doing the revolutionary acts that were supposed to have developed from the proletariat? Russia didn't have the conditions for classical Marxism- Britain should have seen the revolution before Russia.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes, numbers matter. But there was still a proletariat. There is always a proletariat. Perhaps they did not participate in the revolution, but they were still there.