The dichotomy between theory and practise

[Lyev]

I was thinking of posting this in history, but this discussion is probably a mixture of the two. I thought it was best in here. Anyway, so basically, why has a classless, moneyless, stateless society* never been achieved? Is it because of fault in actual theory itself, in Chinese Maoism, Cuban Castroism, Russian Bolshevism etc. etc.? Or is it partly from externalities? Like, for example, the 1917 Russian Revolution was followed by military intervention by fourteen foreign powers. I've never really seen any discussion like this posted before, but it doesn't seem as though things like this are discussed often.

*as in communism, or in fact anarchism (the definition of socialism pre-Lenin) or why have revolutions failed to spread? Why have these things never happened internationally? I do realise that it's partly a question of history as well.

[Muzk]

We wouldn't be discussing this if they did.

In fact, RevLeft wouldn't even exist.

No fault in the theories, but in the material circumstances, always. Deal with them, that's the way to go.

[Hit The North]

This is some of what Karl Marx had to say on the matter:


Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living.

Human beings are the active agents of their own society but are not free to act as they see fit, but according to the powers of history and society which bear down on them.

From a historical materialist point of view, we explain the way people act as they do and understand the limits and outcomes of their actions by examining the social relations they find thermselves inextricably connected to.

[FSL]

I was thinking of posting this in history, but this discussion is probably a mixture of the two. I thought it was best in here. Anyway, so basically, why has a classless, moneyless, stateless society* never been achieved? Is it because of fault in actual theory itself, in Chinese Maoism, Cuban Castroism, Russian Bolshevism etc. etc.? Or is it partly from externalities? Like, for example, the 1917 Russian Revolution was followed by military intervention by fourteen foreign powers. I've never really seen any discussion like this posted before, but it doesn't seem as though things like this are discussed often.

*as in communism, or in fact anarchism (the definition of socialism pre-Lenin) or why have revolutions failed to spread? Why have these things never happened internationally? I do realise that it's partly a question of history as well.


Can you honestly imagine two merchants in the 16th century saying they'll never get rid of the king and that he'll always take most of what they earn with his taxes?

Revolution hasn't spread, well, because it hasn't. In the eyes of history centuries come and go and we're standing pretty strong in our young movement. What is more, there is no "option" of failing. Not because revolution will come to us like a ripe fruit but because workers are "drawn" to it, it is the rational answer to the most frequently asked question "How will my life get better?"

People desire change because it's our way out, workers can't really afford to be sad over the speed events take. We, like those merchants, can only move ahead in an one-way road, as long as we do that there should be no time to spare to think about how much time is behind us.



And on a more specific note, the russian revolution faced problems stemming mainly (in my opinion) from the character agriculture had acquired and the rarity of educated, specialized laborers that caused them to be overpayed for an amount of time and stressed the antagonism between them and the plain worker. Not any fundamental errors in theory or outside agression (though this did obviously worsen things).