So are you banking on your revolution not devolving into oppressive dictatorship?

[ArdentCapitalist]

You know, like every other leftist revolution ever in the history of the world that lasted for more than ten minutes?

I would wish you luck, but I like the idea of not starving after farm collectivization results in massive shortage so... yeah. Poor luck to you.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

All these other leftist revolutions occurred in countries that were already oppressive dictatorships long before the revolution. And, while most of these revolutions did indeed fail to create a socialist society, they still succeeded in a creating societies that were far better, far more progressive, and far less oppressive than the pre-revolutionary ones.

Oh, and farm collectivization is no longer necessary in this day and age. Capitalism has already done a good job of eliminating the individual farm as a viable unit of production. We'll just nationalize the big agricultural corporations.

[Hiero]

No, the plan is to starve as many people as possible.

[Dejavu]

No, the plan is to starve as many people as possible.
^ Seems to have worked pretty well so far.

[IcarusAngel]

According to Amartya Sen and many other economists - and intellectuals such as the authors of the Black Book of Capitalism (far more trustable than the trolls at Mises forums) - capitalism has starved far more people than communism (and let's not forget, is continuing to do so).

Capitalist death toll: 100 million to half a billion.

But these games are ultimiately silly. The problem with capitalism is that it's unfree and actually works against human nature and human interests. The world is turning towards free systems in many parts of the third world, though.

[Dejavu]

far more trustable than the trolls at Mises forums

You can't deny your love.:blushing:

[Bud Struggle]

I think I'd give it a shot. I imagine the same skills that make one a good Capitalist could also be of use to someone wanting to be a dictator. :D

[ZeroNowhere]

So are you banking on your plane not being another failure, Wilbur?

[Zanthorus]

You know, like every other leftist revolution ever in the history of the world that lasted for more than ten minutes?

I would wish you luck, but I like the idea of not starving after farm collectivization results in massive shortage so... yeah. Poor luck to you.

Catalonia - 1936-39

Look it up. George Orwell wrote a book about it.

[Nwoye]

You know, like every other leftist revolution ever in the history of the world that lasted for more than ten minutes?

I would wish you luck, but I like the idea of not starving after farm collectivization results in massive shortage so... yeah. Poor luck to you.
off to the gulags with ya

[Hiero]

Starvation is a common thing, as mentioned in capitalism which is considered the benchmark of humanity more people have starved in capitalist economic development and continue to starve.

What is not mentioned that collectivisation actually solved the problem of starvation in these countries by instituting some from of planing and industrialisation.

[Dr Mindbender]

http://www.agoravox.fr/IMG/do_not_feed_trolls.jpg

[Tatarin]

Starving? You mean like most of the world does now in this capitalist paradise?

[Mindtoaster]

Roughly 35,000 people starve to death per day under capitalism. Nice try though.

As mentioned already, the days of individual farms are gone, and collectivization will be much more efficient, not to mention the advances in agricultural technology made since the days of the soviet union

[Demogorgon]

As I said in another thread, the biggest risk to a socialist project in a "democratic" country based on historical precedent is not dictatorship but failure to get much done. The risk is failure to kill off capitalism and simply taming it a little for a while. And while that is certainly a failure from our point of view, it won't make things any worse so it is worth the risk. I think with past experience, we should be better at avoiding that now anyway.

[Revy]

Banking is capitalist, so no, I wouldn't bank on it.




:)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Despite existing in capitalist societies, there are actually still many pre-capitalist units of production in rural parts of much of the world, that is, "individual farms". That is why there are land reform movements all over the place. Capitalism hasn't yet done away with this, but they're getting there.
Don't forget that these modes of production still prevail in much of the capitalist world, to some degree.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You know, like every other leftist revolution ever in the history of the world that lasted for more than ten minutes?

I would wish you luck, but I like the idea of not starving after farm collectivization results in massive shortage so... yeah. Poor luck to you.

And you are banking on capitalism? Here's some advice - your mattress is a more reliable place to bank.

Do you own your own business - a warehouse or a factory? A noncollectivised farm maybe? Do you ardently own these things - I'm mean you're a capitalist right?

[Red Label]

Why can a capitalist post on here?

[ZeroNowhere]

Why can a capitalist post on here?
Because otherwise it would be silly and unnecessarily discriminatory?

[Green Dragon]

Oh, and farm collectivization is no longer necessary in this day and age. Capitalism has already done a good job of eliminating the individual farm as a viable unit of production. We'll just nationalize the big agricultural corporations.

This simply demonstrates that the big agricultural corporations are viable in a capitalist community. It says nothing about its viability in a socialist community- regardless as to whether it is nationalised.

[Green Dragon]

As I said in another thread, the biggest risk to a socialist project in a "democratic" country based on historical precedent is not dictatorship but failure to get much done. The risk is failure to kill off capitalism and simply taming it a little for a while. And while that is certainly a failure from our point of view, it won't make things any worse so it is worth the risk. I think with past experience, we should be better at avoiding that now anyway.

But why did socialists in the past NOT avoid that failure?

[Demogorgon]

This simply demonstrates that the big agricultural corporations are viable in a capitalist community. It says nothing about its viability in a socialist community- regardless as to whether it is nationalised.
Economies of scale won't vanish with socialism, but at any rate, what are you saying? That small farms will appear and then we will oppress them again?

But why did socialists in the past NOT avoid that failure?
Lack of historical experience, fear of moving too quickly, desire to appear moderate etc. It is possible to learn from past mistakes believe it or not.

[NecroCommie]

The OP is clearly no aware of the fact that communism means killing things on an industrial scale. What did he think we promoted work for? It sure feels like work at those numbers.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Demogorgon;1593656]Economies of scale won't vanish with socialism, but at any rate, what are you saying? That small farms will appear and then we will oppress them again?


I am suggesting that the current development in agriculture in a capitalist community is a result of functioning within a capitalist community. The note I responded to suggested all socialism would have to do is take it over, and things start to roll.



Lack of historical experience, fear of moving too quickly, desire to appear moderate etc. It is possible to learn from past mistakes believe it or not.


I have no doubt it is possible to learn from historical mistakes. I am wondering what those mistakes were.

The claim was made (twice) that (to use a religious allegory) "orthodox" socialism evolved into "reform" socialism in the developed world (ie I guess meaning Europe). It is deemed a failure.

So based upon the above response:
1. Is it fair to say that ONLY difference between "orthodox" socialism and "reform" socialism is the speed of change? There is no difference between the folks of Revleft, and say the folks of the Labor Party of the UK?
2. Is "orthodox" socialism an extreme view, and is "reform" socialism a moderate take?

[Demogorgon]

Something like the Labour Party isn't reform socialist though. It is social liberal/third way.

But no, the speed of change is not the only difference between revolutionaries and reformists, but it is certainly true that revolutionaries became reformists. The things I mentioned caused the change. And of course the political realities forced further compromise. That is what I believe the problem was. I don't pretend that it couldn't happen again, but I fail to see why it is such a fearsome prospect as to not worth risking it. At any rate, it is at least better than what I have now.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You know, like every other leftist revolution ever in the history of the world that lasted for more than ten minutes?

I would wish you luck, but I like the idea of not starving after farm collectivization results in massive shortage so... yeah. Poor luck to you.

Someone forgot to read up on the Spanish Revolution.

Those failed attempts at achieving socialism, not including the above, were nothing compared to the failures and oppressive dictation of the capitalist system.

[RGacky3]

I have yet to see any innate corolation between making the economy public, i.e. socialization, and dictatorship. Is there any a priori corolation between the 2?

PS: There is'nt.

[ls]

UR FACE iSa PROGRESSIVE DICTATORSHIP

[Pogue]

I'm not banking on anything, banking is a capitalist enterprise.

[Dejavu]

Except for free banking and mutual aid banks. :)

[Pogue]

Except for free banking and mutual aid banks. :)

you caught me out :blushing:

[Tungsten]

All these other leftist revolutions occurred in countries that were already oppressive dictatorships long before the revolution. And, while most of these revolutions did indeed fail to create a socialist society, they still succeeded in a creating societies that were far better, far more progressive, and far less oppressive than the pre-revolutionary ones.

Replace "revolution" with "invasion" and this almost sounds like a defence of imperialism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Replace "revolution" with "invasion" and this almost sounds like a defence of imperialism.
I wasn't aware that imperialism was solely directed against reactionary dictatorships, or that it always resulted in "societies that were far better, far more progressive, and far less oppressive" than the pre-invasion ones.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Replace "revolution" with "invasion" and this almost sounds like a defence of imperialism.

Why not replace "invasion" with "liberating." This almost sounds like a offensive on imperialism.

[#FF0000]

Replace "revolution" with "invasion" and this almost sounds like a defence of imperialism.

Yeah. Good thing that revolutions and invasions are completely different things. You might have almost had a point.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, you know, if you replace "revolution" with "eating veggies", it sounds just like a defence of vegetarianism. :rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Replace "revolution" with "invasion" and this almost sounds like a defence of imperialism.
Replace "imperialism" with "elephants" and your sentence just makes you sound silly.

[NecroCommie]

Replace "revolution" with "invasion" and this almost sounds like a defence of imperialism.
Yet the defence is only valid if the word is revolution, making your counter futile.

[Demogorgon]

Replace "revolution" with "invasion" and this almost sounds like a defence of imperialism.
Sure, but that would also change it from a largely accurate statement to a largely false one. After all imperialism often gutted the countries it dwelt in. I've said quite a bit about India on this board to take one example, but there were plenty of other places hit like that too.

[Tungsten]

I wasn't aware that imperialism was solely directed against reactionary dictatorships, or that it always resulted in "societies that were far better, far more progressive, and far less oppressive" than the pre-invasion ones.

It invariably did result in a dictatorships that was no worse than those that preceeded them. Europe, in general, benefitted from the Roman empire. The world, in general, benefitted from the British empire. From the viewpoint of the average worker in any of the countries they invaded, they either benefitted in some way, or nothing changed. Rarely did anything get significantly worse. I find it ironic that criticism of revolution on the same grounds is welcomed, but imperialism condemned.

------


Why not replace "invasion" with "liberating." This almost sounds like a offensive on imperialism.


That's just rhetoric. Don't forget: Stalin "liberated" eastern Europe.

------


Yeah. Good thing that revolutions and invasions are completely different things. You might have almost had a point.

Completely different, but justified for identical reasons.

The rest of you aren't worth replying to. Demogorgon: Your example (India) is one of the worse you could have picked. Especially considering the shit they got themselves into shortly after 1947.

[Demogorgon]

The rest of you aren't worth replying to. Demogorgon: Your example (India) is one of the worse you could have picked. Especially considering the shit they got themselves into shortly after 1947.
Nope it is an excellent example, and if you had the brains to check your facts before you spout off with your reliably ridiculous statements, you would see why.

Around the time the British East India Company began to clearly become the dominant force in India, the Indian economy was roughly the same size as te European Economy. (That is the sum of the various economies in the different states on the Indian subcontinent was around the same as the sum of the economies of the different European States). By 1947, the European economy had grown by an extraordinary amount. The Indian economy had actually shrunk slightly and in terms of per capita GDP it was the poorest country in the world by most estimates.If that doesn't count as devastation I don't know what does.

And that is before we even get ourselves into the fact that Britain strengthened the caste system and played a divide and conquer game that eventually end up in partition.

Ridiculously you claim that what happened "shortly after 1947" shows that Britain was somehow beneffitting the country, when what happened was a direct result of British rule. Both due to the knock on effects of British policies (particularly the handling of partition) and also the not inconsiderable fact that while the process of independence was fairly swift in the part that became modern India, in Pakistan (which also included Bangladesh back then) remained under partial colonial rule until 1956. Britain remained a very significant If you were to want to claim independence hurt India or that it was better under British rule, you would have to look at how India faired after the dust had settled so to speak. Yet India has faired far better since Britain left. Indeed not only has it finally seen some economic growth, but it has been very significant growth.

[IcarusAngel]

Ten years after India's independence, after India's first 'five year plan' (which was a privatization plan) and their next five plan, half of the population was in dire poverty.

According to the public Hunger and Public Action, by Sen, himself Indian, India lost at least 3.4 million lives every 8 years when he performed his calculation. That's at least 54.4 million people dead. That's a staggering number by any account. (And that is just the number he predicts would have been saved if there was at least as good of social safety net as there was in China.)


Other economists go back further before the 80s, meaning the number is approximating 100 million.

"In India alone, nearly 700 million people live in the villages. The rural population is increasing at a faster pace than their urban counterpart... ...mostly as a result of illiteracy, lack of access to birth control measures, and poverty. The pace of overall development in most countries does not keep up with the needs of this increasing population. The result is that there are more poor people in the world today than 50 years ago, and most live in rural areas

Over 90% of the agricultural land is owned and cultivated by less than 5% of the rural population. In most villages, almost all the cultivable land is owned by a handful of people, and the remaining land is owned by the government and by the poor. The poor are unable to use their land for agriculture for lack of water resources, poor soil conditions, and unavailability of credit. Hence, they do not stand to gain directly from any of the government programs."

"There are no easy answers. The real solution lies in the ownership and use of a permanent income generating asset by the poor: land. The poor people must be given the opportunity to own and develop land and gain the skills and capabilities necessary for cultivating high-value crops. "

-- Dr. Abraham George at Wharton School of Business

I don't know if you were arguing that India is better off than they would have been under continued British rule but it seems the capitalist landed reforms they've made have mainly benefited an elite class while devastating the poor, to the point where even capitalists cannot stomach the 'reforms.'

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well yes obviously we are banking on that one dumbass.

Just like any scoiety in the future, authoritarianism would be a good thing to avoid dumbass.

God what a dumbass.

[Havet]

Man, if only people here on revleft answered this much to the other threads as they like answering to trolls...

[Jazzratt]

Man, if only people here on revleft answered this much to the other threads as they like answering to trolls...

All the other threads were made by trolls too.

[Demogorgon]

I don't know if you were arguing that India is better off than they would have been under continued British rule but it seems the capitalist landed reforms they've made have mainly benefited an elite class while devastating the poor, to the point where even capitalists cannot stomach the 'reforms.'

Nobody is arguing that India turned into a paradise with independence, and certainly not myself. I said India is far better now than it was under British Rule.

Because regardless of the bad things that have happened since indepencence, they are mild compared to what happened under British rule. Apart from the elite concentrated in a few areas, India was still a medieval country under Britain.

[Green Dragon]

Something like the Labour Party isn't reform socialist though. It is social liberal/third way.

But no, the speed of change is not the only difference between revolutionaries and reformists, but it is certainly true that revolutionaries became reformists. The things I mentioned caused the change. And of course the political realities forced further compromise. That is what I believe the problem was. I don't pretend that it couldn't happen again, but I fail to see why it is such a fearsome prospect as to not worth risking it. At any rate, it is at least better than what I have now.

But what I am not understanding:

1. Why is responding to the public (ie trying to appear "moderate") considered part of the cause for failure, particularly when the goal is greater democracy?

2. Is it a bad thing for revolutionary socialism to devolve into reform socialism? What are the risks in NOT compromising?

[Ele'ill]

Life support isn't freedom.