Learning the mistakes of the 1917 revolution

[Hexen]

If another revolution is to occur, what mistakes can we learn from the past (1917, etc) and to ensure not to repeat them again?

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you're gonna call "All Power to Workers Councils!" be consistent with it. Don't bandy that around and then pull coups d'etat on them just for losing political support.

Better yet, just don't call that slogan and focus on the building of the party-movement and its institutions.

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol What mistakes?

[W1N5T0N]

dont go shooting the people that support you.

[Geiseric]

lol What mistakes? This is just a thought but would allowing some kind of opposition inside of the revolutionary government, such as different parties being allowed to join, be a good idea? the centralisation of power kinda bit them in the ass later on imho. would have been more efficient government if an opposition was allowed to the bolsheviks. or more specifically to stalin.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't really know, tbh.

I think a strong, centralized program really does need to be implemented and I don't think that holding onto "opposition" ideals is very helpful.

I mean, honestly, I don't see that centralized power really bit the Soviets in the ass in any way, shape, or form. And I don't believe enough in the liberal value of "dissent" to buy that keeping people who don't have strict revolutionary agendas close to the mechanisms of power is something we should pursue.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Don't let them find out the anarcho-trot conspiracy! Why else would they be suppressed and killed?

[Ocean Seal]

Don't let them find out the anarcho-trot conspiracy! Why else would they be suppressed and killed?
Huh? Did the anarcho-trots shoot themselves in the leg at Kronstadt during the Russian revolution?

[SacRedMan]

Listen to the bald and wise guy when he warns for a guy that is going to eliminate the old revolutionairies.

[bcbm]

nothing really, we live in vastly different circumstances and any "revolution" today would probably not look anything like 1917

[Blake's Baby]

Beware parties that substitute themselves for the self-organisation of the working class is my number one rule for Revolution II.

On the positive side, if you want a Consituent Assembly suppressed, get Anarchist Sailors to do it, they're well up for the job.

[Psy]

Don't have a revolution in a underdeveloped nation, the peasant-proletarian split is what caused most of the problems in the Bolshevik party as the peasantry had no intention in building a workers state and quickly became a reactionary force.

Next smash tradition, to get rid of the muck of ages in the revolution. The masses shouldn't fell smug about their nation having a revolution, no revolution in one country since there can't be any nationalism and instead internationalism, focusing on spread the revolution to every corner of the Earth (if that fails focus on getting all the workers to immigrate to the communist world depriving the remaining capitalists nations of their work force).

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think the peasant/proletarian split is important. If the revolution is to succeed it must be international, as you say in your next post; so the local (ie national) specificities will be unimportant, I think. It's not as if they're going to matter on Day 2 of the process when predominantly peasant Revolutionary Agristan joins up with predominantly proletarian Revolutionary Machinovia.

[Robespierre Richard]

Don't base your entire ideology on what happened during the 1917 revolution and the civil war. You'll get deported and eventually killed with a pickaxe.

I guess that's pretty much it. I guess you can judge the events through your ideological glasses but it won't really help unless your group has a power struggle and you want to have an ideological justification for why you should be the one in power and not the other bros. This is basically every internal communist party conflict ever.

[Forward Union]

The real failure was the inability for the revolution to spread to Germany, in 1918, the KPD and the SDP had a serious opportunity to create a German Soviet republic. This would have given the Soviet bloc serious economic and scientific power, in fact, it would have been far more economically advanced than the US and UK, would have been able to out-produce the west. This means it would not have been under siege, and would have been internally more relaxed, meaning the democratic degeneration which it underwent probably would have halted. Even Lenin considered the Russian revolution to be a "holding ground" until the real revolution took place in the economically advanced areas like Germany.

Also, the KPD contained many Marxists who were much, much more progressive than the Leninist s in Russia, much more in line with the original ideas of Socialism. Germany would have had far more influence and power over internal Soviet policy than Russia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm far more a Libertarian Socialist than a Leninist, I think Leninist policy in the Russian revolution had a significant part to play in the failure of Socialism in general. But I further believe that a successful revolution in Germany could have made the Russian revolution a footnote of history.

But why did the German revolution fail? Well, here we have to go into some depth. Stalin played the SDP and KPD against each other, and if you read the personal letters between the key figures in these groups you find some depressing (and historically ironic comments) about Hitler being "nobody" and the Nazis being "Lumpen in the south", they truly believed the key conflicts were inter-left.

Also, where the Revolution did have temporary success, the Communists set up The Bavarian Soviet Republic which was lead by at least one person of questionable mental health, when it declared war on Switzerland and phoned Lenin personally to say that the previous Weimar government had stolen the keys to the toilet.

[Blake's Baby]

Hmm, while I agree with almost all of that I don't think the failure of the revolution in Germany was down to Stalin or 'inter-leftist conflict'.

The SPD had used the Freikorps to murder communists in 1918-19; the KPD/KAPD had broken with the SPD over the revolution anyway; by default, the SPD by the begining of 1919 were those who supported the social-patriot line - sure, the war was over and the Kaiser was gone, but the task for the SPD became the 'socialist' (ie reformist) management of German national capitalism. There was no way that they were going to allow the KPD and the working class to challenge their hard-won 'democratic republic', and called on 'patriotic Germans' to save the Fatherland by murdering communists, including Rosa and Karl Leibknecht.

There was no possibility of an alliance between the SPD and the KPD in the '20s. The SPD were counter-revolutionaries, the KPD/KAPD were revolutionaries.

[Forward Union]

By that point yea, of course. But before that Communist policy was to take over the SPD rather than build a separate KPD.

[red flag over teeside]

One of the reasons why the German revolution of 1918-19 failed was that the German working class had never been won away from the SPD. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Leibneicht should have attempted to build a revolutionary party before the disasterof 1914 in fact when they saw the right wing refusing to implement congress decisions around about 1907 they should have broken with the SPD. Of course they may have failed and the SPD may still have retained the allegiance of the majority of German workers but they could have tried.

On the idea that leninism is overly authoritarian I would disagree in fact there was a great deal of space in the Bolshevik party for opposition. It was through the civil war that the ban on factions was announced which was one of the mistake. For a good account of the mistakes I would urge people to read the correspondence between Serge and Trotsky to get a flavour of the debates.

I agree that we need to learn from the mistakes while keeping aware of what will be different this time around.

[Forward Union]

I don't think the 'authoritarianism' of Leninism is what opponents are most concerned about. I think the fact that Lenin abolished the Soviets (the workers decision making power) and handed over industrial planning to Western Capitalist advisers, while re-constructing the former Tsarist mechanisms of oppression (often more efficiently) in order to eradicate internal socialist dissidents is more concerning. I'm just not sure how any Socialist can sit with these facts. I'm not being overly moralistic, I fully accept the need for rather unorthodox methods, particularly in a state of total war - and have far more fundamental objections to Left-Communism. But these actions completely nullify any claims to Socialism, I mean once you've got rid of workers control of the means of production (The core defining principle of Socialism), I'm not sure what you're left with.

[Blake's Baby]

Weird, that sounds exactly like Left-Communism to me.

[Psy]

I don't think the peasant/proletarian split is important. If the revolution is to succeed it must be international, as you say in your next post; so the local (ie national) specificities will be unimportant, I think. It's not as if they're going to matter on Day 2 of the process when predominantly peasant Revolutionary Agristan joins up with predominantly proletarian Revolutionary Machinovia.
You need a strong industrial proletarian core at the heart of the revolution. The core of the revolution can't be bogged down by backwardness as the revolution has to smash tradition to get rid of the muck of ages.

[Blake's Baby]

I'd argue that's not even true in a single territory, let alone on a world scale.

[Forward Union]

Weird, that sounds exactly like Left-Communism to me.

No, it's not. I have far more problems with Left-Communism than with Leninism. Now Left-Communists might happen to have this same criticism of Leninism as I do, but that doesn't mean I'm going to abandon my analysis. Trotskyists also agree with my analysis that the revolution in Germany would have saved the Russian revolution, but I'm not a Trotskyist either.


You need a strong industrial proletarian core at the heart of the revolution. The core of the revolution can't be bogged down by backwardness as the revolution has to smash tradition to get rid of the muck of ages.

The problem isn't even the backwardness of the Peasantry. The main problem is that without a large industrial complex, you will be outproduced (and out-gunned) in a cold-war situation with Capitalist Countries, will be forced to degenerate internal affairs due to the siege and will collapse internally.

[Psy]

I'd argue that's not even true in a single territory, let alone on a world scale.
There are reactionary elements even within the industrial working class, it is just that the industrial working class has a tendency to be less reactionary then their rural comrades (under capitalism). Have you noticed in the USA there have been worker uprisings in heavily industrial areas but not in rural areas, the closest to being revolutionary in rural America has been being gravitated to industrial workers uprisings.

If we scale up to the international level we would probably see that same where rural regions of Earth would just be made revolutionary by gravitating to revolutionary pull of the industrial centers.

[Blake's Baby]

No, it's not. I have far more problems with Left-Communism than with Leninism. Now Left-Communists might happen to have this same criticism of Leninism as I do, but that doesn't mean I'm going to abandon my analysis. Trotskyists also agree with my analysis that the revolution in Germany would have saved the Russian revolution, but I'm not a Trotskyist either....

Sure, I don't want you to think that I'm assuming that you're a Left-Communist in denial. Even though I agree almost completely with your analysis.

What are your criticisms of Left-Communism if you don't mind my asking?

Psy, I agree with much of what you're saying. I just don't see that even in countries with a majority of the peasantry, the revolution must necessarily fail - precisely because I see the world working class as being more important than the national peasantry in the world revolutionary process. EG in the 'Arab Spring' revolts the catalysts seem to have been among the smallholders and unemployed (who may be regarded as peasant/petite-bourgeoisie, and lumpenproletariat respectively); but what has been positive has been where they've broken away from making demands on the state to organising to challenge it... this is a process that can happen whatever the class background of the participants, but is more likely to work if there a strong working class presence.

[Forward Union]

There are reactionary elements even within the industrial working class, it is just that the industrial working class has a tendency to be less reactionary then their rural comrades (under capitalism). Have you noticed in the USA there have been worker uprisings in heavily industrial areas but not in rural areas, the closest to being revolutionary in rural America has been being gravitated to industrial workers uprisings.

Well peasants own their land. So they stand to lose under a socialist economy. I don't think it's because they are uneducated that they are generally more 'reactionary'. But since industrialised farming (which is really so advanced now) there don't even need to be that many people working in the countryside. In fact, a few years ago (I think 2007?) people living in urban centres finally rose above 50%.


If we scale up to the international level we would probably see that same where rural regions of Earth would just be made revolutionary by gravitating to revolutionary pull of the industrial centers.

Well also, as organisers, we have pretty much no interest in revolutions in say, South Sudan or The Congo, because they have such terrible industrial infrastructure, any revolution there would be destroyed by international capitalism. What we really want is Europe, and Caucasus, because this geo-region has enough industrial capacity and raw resources to out-last 'the west' in a cold war situation.

[Psy]

Well peasants own their land. So they gain to lose under a socialist economy. I don't think it's because they are uneducated that they are generally more 'reactionary'.

Yes and no, they will gain through higher overall living standards. For example the mass industrialization of Afghanistan would raise rural living standards greatly even amount land owners, (it is just land owners would no longer own land under a communist Afghanistan).

We must show the peasants that the organization of industry on the basis of modern, advanced technology, on electrification, which will provide a link between town and country, will put an end to the division between town and country, will make it possible to raise the level of culture in the countryside and to overcome, even in the most remote corners of land, backwardness, ignorance, poverty, disease, and barbarism -Lenin



But since industrialised farming (which is really so advanced now) there don't even need to be that many people working in the countryside. In fact, a few years ago (I think 2007?) people living in urban centres finally rose above 50%.

True but that is industrialized nations.



Well also, as organisers, we have pretty much no interest in revolutions in say, South Sudan or The Congo, because they have such terrible industrial infrastructure, any revolution there would be destroyed by international capitalism. What we really want is Europe, and Caucasus, because this geo-region has enough industrial capacity and raw resources to out-last 'the west' in a cold war situation.
Actually not, a established revolutionary state would have huge interest in revolutions in South Sudan and The Congo. There would be debates if the revolutionary army should be deployed to defend these revolutions and if engineers should be sent to provide technical aid to help these nations rapidly industrialize.

Meaning even if the USSR was a true revolutionary body it would still have probably intervened in North Vietnam and Afghanistan. Of course there would be a new possible solution available to a revolutionary USSR of just relocating North Vietnam and Afghanistan into the USSR and abandoned the physically land of North Vietnam and Afghanistan to capitalists, due it being easier to just build up the underdeveloped regions in the USSR with the revolutionary populations of North Vietnam and Afghanistan.

[Blake's Baby]

...


True but that is industrialized nations.
....

No Forward Union's right, it's worldwide. UN stats say that since 2007 more people across the globe have lived in cities than in the countryside.

[Psy]

No Forward Union's right, it's worldwide. UN stats say that since 2007 more people across the globe have lived in cities than in the countryside.
You still have a huge undeveloped regions.

[Forward Union]

Yes and no, they will gain through higher overall living standards. For example the mass industrialization of Afghanistan would raise rural living standards greatly even amount land owners, (it is just land owners would no longer own land under a communist Afghanistan).

We must show the peasants that the organization of industry on the basis of modern, advanced technology, on electrification, which will provide a link between town and country, will put an end to the division between town and country, will make it possible to raise the level of culture in the countryside and to overcome, even in the most remote corners of land, backwardness, ignorance, poverty, disease, and barbarism -Lenin


But in doing this we would also reduce the size of the peasantry, because the overall workload would reduce as a result of industrialisation. Thus, most of the rural workers would become urban workers.


Actually not, a established revolutionary state would have huge interest in revolutions in South Sudan and The Congo. There would be debates if the revolutionary army should be deployed to defend these revolutions and if engineers should be sent to provide technical aid to help these nations rapidly industrialize.

What would it gain. We are better off trying to overthrow regimes industrialised nations, but this is a matter of where our efforts will be most effective. Of course I support the struggle of Congolese workers, or anyone But it's not strategically useful. In the same way I prefer to try to Unionise Energy Shipping or Arms production, rather than Starbucks employees. It doesn't meant that the conditions of Starbucks employees aren't shit, that they should organise, and we should show our Solidarity.

[Psy]

But in doing this we would also reduce the size of the peasantry, because the overall workload would reduce as a result of industrialisation. Thus, most of the rural workers would become urban workers.

True, which is why there will be some resistance from reactionary elements. For example there probably be villages in Afghanistan that would take great offense to a narrow gauge rail line being built through their village linking them to products of the communist world, and the sight of female industrial workers would probably cause some backlash from traditionalists thus the need of a strong industrial core to crush traditionalists through the productive might of the communist world.



What would it gain. We are better off trying to overthrow regimes industrialised nations, but this is a matter of where our efforts will be most effective. Of course I support the struggle of Congolese workers, or anyone But it's not strategically useful.

It is useful by spreading the revolution and modernizing underdeveloped regions.

[Kadir Ateş]

There weren't any mistakes made in 1917, it was in the years after the revolution where things got ugly.

And also probably not a good thing to suppress the left-wing of your own party or movement, as one comrade told me yesterday.

[Forward Union]

Sure, I don't want you to think that I'm assuming that you're a Left-Communist in denial. Even though I agree almost completely with your analysis.

What are your criticisms of Left-Communism if you don't mind my asking?

Pretty much the same as Lenins. That left-Communism is completely incapable of engagement in the real world because it denies all pragmatic methods and only allows for a very narrow set of actions determined by almost superstitious principals. It's only answer to any issue, no matter how complicated is "all workers should unite and overthrow capitalism" - Left communism amounts to nothing more than extreme Marxist Moralism.Not to mention that it's anti union, turns a blind eye to Imperialism, etc.

[Blake's Baby]

Ah well, obviously I'd refute every one of those points. Even the 'anti-union' question, there are plenty of Bordigists that aren't anti-union. And the German left was of course accused of 'syndicalism', Mattick joined the IWW, and I think it was Korsch formed the 'Unionen' in Germany. I'm 'anti-union' though, but as I think the IWW isn't a 'union' the way I understand it, I really don't have a problem with it. I don't think it's all that useful, but I certainly don't see it as being counter-revolutionary like Trades Unions.

I don't think it's the only answer to say that Left Communists just say 'workers need to unite and overthrow capitalism'. Left Communists do say it - because workers do need to unite to overthrow capitalism - but it's not the only thing we say, any more than the IWW only says 'we need one big union'. Which it does say, of course. I do agree to an extent however that the groups of the communist left are incabable of real action, but don't see that as being because they're puritans or moral zealots. I think it's because they're rubbish at organising themselves and riddled with sectarianism.

Nor do I think it turns a blind eye to imperialism either, I've just been arguing about whether the NATO bombing of Libya is imperialism or not (I think it is of course). What we do is refuse to support local capitalists against far-away capitalists, because to do that is counter-productive. There are no 'progressive' bits of the bourgeoisie left. Why should workers think that being oppressed by someone with the same colour hair as you is any better than being oppressed by someone with different coloured hair? It's utterly meaningless. It's the oppression, capitalism, the state, that need to be fought, not accents, beards or styles of jacket.

One of the mistakes of 1917 (briefly referring to the topic under discussion) I think was Lenin giving in to the (nationalist, reformist, bourgeois-democratic) 'right of nations to self-determination'. At present I list my tendency as 'Luxemburgist' though I'm going to change it after this post. Anyway it is up until now 'Luxemburgist' for two reasons, one is Luxemburg's economic analysis and the other is her rejection of 'the right of nations to self-determination'.

I think this latter analysis is one of the great gains of the workers' movement in the early 20th century, something that the Bolsheviks never assimilated with disasterous consequences in Georgia, Finland, Poland etc. The unity of the working class is of paramount importance. Internationalism is the touchstone of progressive politics, which why I have in my sig 'no war but class war' and 'destroy all nations'. Left Communists not only do not turn a blind eye to imperialism, they expose it wherever it is - in the nationalism of 'the oppressed nations' and 'the progressive/Socialist nations' as well as the imperialism of NATO.

Oh, and as well the Bordegists sometimes support National Liberation movements but I think that they're very wrong to do so and it's hard to see why some Left Comms still regard them as being on the side of the proletariat when they do.

[Forward Union]

Ah well, obviously I'd refute every one of those points. Even the 'anti-union' question, there are plenty of Bordigists that aren't anti-union. And the German left was of course accused of 'syndicalism', Mattick joined the IWW, and I think it was Korsch formed the 'Unionen' in Germany. I'm 'anti-union' though, but as I think the IWW isn't a 'union' the way I understand it, I really don't have a problem with it. I don't think it's all that useful, but I certainly don't see it as being counter-revolutionary like Trades Unions.

I don't think it's the only answer to say that Left Communists just say 'workers need to unite and overthrow capitalism'. Left Communists do say it - because workers do need to unite to overthrow capitalism - but it's not the only thing we say, any more than the IWW only says 'we need one big union'. Which it does say, of course. I do agree to an extent however that the groups of the communist left are incabable of real action, but don't see that as being because they're puritans or moral zealots. I think it's because they're rubbish at organising themselves and riddled with sectarianism.

Nor do I think it turns a blind eye to imperialism either, I've just been arguing about whether the NATO bombing of Libya is imperialism or not (I think it is of course). What we do is refuse to support local capitalists against far-away capitalists, because to do that is counter-productive. There are no 'progressive' bits of the bourgeoisie left. Why should workers think that being oppressed by someone with the same colour hair as you is any better than being oppressed by someone with different coloured hair? It's utterly meaningless. It's the oppression, capitalism, the state, that need to be fought, not accents, beards or styles of jacket.

Well no criticism is ever all-encompassing. But I always like to bring up the ICC affiliates "Against the National Union of Miners" leaflet campaign during the 1984 miners strikes under Thatcher.

I obviously do agree that all the workers should unite, the question of race and gender doesn't exist in my mind. But strategy does, as I said before, we do explicitly want to take control of industrialised countries. And more specifically, particular industries; Weapons production, Energy and transport - these are the basis of real power.

Also, I believe that all political leftism is built off the back of the economically (not politically) organised working class. In other words, socialist politics of any type are far more appealing to a "trade union concious" population. All political leftism was developed in a context of class upheaval, which is very different today. Thus I think we ought abandon the party model and focus on rebuilding the non-political economic organs of class power; Unions, Community groups, etc... here I diverge with most of my comrades who are hell bent on getting their meeting membership up.


I think this latter analysis is one of the great gains of the workers' movement in the early 20th century, something that the Bolsheviks never assimilated with disasterous consequences in Georgia, Finland, Poland etc. The unity of the working class is of paramount importance. Internationalism is the touchstone of progressive politics, which why I have in my sig 'no war but class war' and 'destroy all nations'. Left Communists not only do not turn a blind eye to imperialism, they expose it wherever it is - in the nationalism of 'the oppressed nations' and 'the progressive/Socialist nations' as well as the imperialism of NATO.

I think the left too often confuse Nation, with Nation state. I think it's basically impossible to erradicate nations, groups of people with a shared language and culture. I don't know why that is a bad thing even. What we are against are National Barriers, Xenophobia and cultural isolationism, which have never been natural to humanity anyway. I quite like some colloquial 'Englishisms' especially having lived abroad for over a year, and having a German girlfriend, it can be quite funny to share some cultural in-jokes about television or figures of speech with another English person.

I remember the Spanish/basque Socialist Manuel Ortega saying "That language you speak, you Basque people. That language should die out. Let it die with dignity and start speaking Spanish". This is a good example of the kind of policy which lead to a divide between Basque 'nationalists' and Socialists which ruined the labour movement of the region until only a few decades ago...

Oh, and as well the Bordegists sometimes support National Liberation movements but I think that they're very wrong to do so and it's hard to see why some Left Comms still regard them as being on the side of the proletariat when they do.[/QUOTE]

[Tim Finnegan]

I think the left too often confuse Nation, with Nation state. I think it's basically impossible to erradicate nations, groups of people with a shared language and culture. I don't know why that is a bad thing even. What we are against are National Barriers, Xenophobia and cultural isolationism, which have never been natural to humanity anyway. I quite like some colloquial 'Englishisms' especially having lived abroad for over a year, and having a German girlfriend, it can be quite funny to share some cultural in-jokes about television or figures of speech with another English person.
I would say that it's possible to take a middle road in this matter, in which the conceptualisation of the nation as a cultural unit is dissolved, but in which the characteristics we currently attribute to nationality are preserved and cultivated. In fact, I believe that a struggle for cultural autonomy would greatly benefit from the dissolution of the nation as an ideological construction, because, released from the monolithic essence of nationhood, it allows a freer and more organic inter-mingling and overlapping of ethnic, cultural and regional communities. What we would now regard as nations are preserved, but denied the ultimate character declared by nationalists- who view all other identities as existing within or without a baseline of nationality- and instead would exist within a nested set of cultural identities; Englishness would survive, but it would not be seen as something fundamentally more exceptional than Northumbrianess, say, on the one hand, or Insularness on the other, and in the process we would resolve its contradictions with non-specifically English ethnic and cultural identities, such as Jewishness, or with individual dual-nationalities, such as Anglo-Scottishness (the latter, speaking as halfbreed, being of particular personal interest to my poor, identity-crisis-ridden self).

[Forward Union]

I would say that it's possible to take a middle road in this matter, in which the conceptualisation of the nation as a cultural unit is dissolved, but in which the characteristics we currently attribute to nationality are preserved and cultivated. In fact, I believe that a struggle for cultural autonomy would greatly benefit from the dissolution of the nation as an ideological construction, because, released from the monolithic essence of nationhood, it allows a freer and more organic inter-mingling and overlapping of ethnic, cultural and regional communities. What we would now regard as nations are preserved, but denied the ultimate character declared by nationalists- who view all other identities as existing within or without a baseline of nationality- and instead would exist within a nested set of cultural identities; Englishness would survive, but it would not be seen as something fundamentally more exceptional than Northumbrianess, say, on the one hand, or Insularness on the other, and in the process we would resolve its contradictions with non-specifically English ethnic and cultural identities, such as Jewishness, or with individual dual-nationalities, such as Anglo-Scottishness (the latter, speaking as halfbreed, being of particular personal interest to my poor, identity-crisis-ridden self).

Well. Two things I would want to add to what I said is that firstly; "nationhood" is not a fixed term anyway, the lines between one culture and the next blur and move all the time, and will continue to, and should. If it wasn't for Arab traders settling in Europe we would lack many herbs spices, if the Chinese hadn't traded noodles with them first the Italians wouldn't have pasta etc. Also, there are greater differences between individuals than cultures, and of course, Class is the most dividing feature. We have more in common with Workers from Korea than Bosses in England.

But the second thing I would want to add is that "nationhood" is by no means tied to geography. Not inherently anyway. The "state" part is what causes territorialism. If we were to abolish national barriers people could go and mingle organically, rather than because of mass economic migration. I expect, generally speaking, that most people would want to settle near to their friends, families, and familiarities but would by no means be obliged to.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well. Two things I would want to add to what I said is that firstly; "nationhood" is not a fixed term anyway, the lines between one culture and the next blur and move all the time, and will continue to, and should. If it wasn't for Arab traders settling in Europe we would lack many herbs spices, if the Chinese hadn't traded noodles with them first the Italians wouldn't have pasta etc. Also, there are greater differences between individuals than cultures, and of course, Class is the most dividing feature. We have more in common with Workers from Korea than Bosses in England.
True, but my point was that nationhood as widely understood today is see as essentially monolothic and exclusive, and so "national culture", even if it is permitted a permeable skin, is still seen as something set fundamentally apart from other cultures. (There are some points of complication, of course, such as the confused state of nationality within the British Isles, but those are general exceptions to the rule, and the complications more often than not represents an attempt push in the direction of the norm.)


But the second thing I would want to add is that "nationhood" is by no means tied to geography. Not inherently anyway. The "state" part is what causes territorialism. If we were to abolish national barriers people could go and mingle organically, rather than because of mass economic migration. I expect, generally speaking, that most people would want to settle near to their friends, families, and familiarities but would by no means be obliged to.Arguably, but the concept of nation as is hegemonic today is tied very heavily to geopolitical factors; it was developed, broadly speaking, as the ideological basis of the bourgeois state, and so reflects the political forms traditionally taken by the bourgeois state.

[Jose Gracchus]

There weren't any mistakes made in 1917, it was in the years after the revolution where things got ugly.

And also probably not a good thing to suppress the left-wing of your own party or movement, as one comrade told me yesterday.

The suppression of the revolutionary left began in 1917.