What went wrong? What should be done differently?

[ZvP]

I'm wondering what you guys think should be done differently if a revolution were to happen today? How did socialist countries of the past (eventually) fail and what should we learn from them?

[Regicollis]

We shouldn't put the guy with the most imposing moustache in charge of everything. Instead we should avoid having leaders and cults of personality. As the Zapatistas say: Everything for the people, nothing for us.

[Questionable]

Let me sum it up and list the three answers you'll get depending on the group:

1: Don't put Khrushchev in charge
2: Don't put Stalin in charge
3: Don't put Lenin in charge

[jookyle]

You can't really say what should be done differently because they would have to be different. The way revolutions happened in the past happen they way they did because of the conditions they were carried out under. As the world is not the same it was then, the revolutions themselves would be different from the past out of necessity to contemporary conditions.

[ZvP]

Let me sum it up and list the three answers you'll get depending on the group:

1: Don't put Khrushchev in charge
2: Don't put Stalin in charge
3: Don't put Lenin in charge


It's easy to just blame a certain guy for the problems of a country. But if your country can be destroyed by one person, you're doing it wrong in the first place. What I'm asking is how we can avoid the outcome of one man and his ideology ruling over everyone. That exact thing has happened too many times and has never worked for an extended period of time. Even if you have a great leader, he's going to die eventually. The system is just too inherently volatile IMO. So basically, what do you believe is the best alternative to this?


You can't really say what should be done differently because they would have to be different. The way revolutions happened in the past happen they way they did because of the conditions they were carried out under. As the world is not the same it was then, the revolutions themselves would be different from the past out of necessity to contemporary conditions.

Okay, but I'm exploring a very broad and fundamental level here. If you support a vanguard party, how do you prevent similar outcomes than those of countries past? If you don't support a vanguard party, what do you believe is the best alternative? That, more or less, is the question I'm trying to ask.

[Catma]

I think the fact that this question exists today, so prominently, is a huge difference in conditions between the modern world and the first half of the 20th century. I also suspect that ideologues of each particular school of communism are the only ones who have researched it thoroughly enough to give you the kind of answer you're looking for.

I think one of the most important things for future attempts will be to assure utter transparency. Or at LEAST detailed sealed records for later evaluation, if reaction is using our own transparency to wage war against us.

[Prometeo liberado]

Accountability played a huge role "what went wrong". As it is fashionable to lay blame on individuals we are surely not so naive as to believe that it was a few individuals who managed this this for so long, right? Collectively, to be sure, there is much blame to go around and without laying collective accountability, and stop blaming these bogeymen, then moving on and understanding will continue to escape us.

[MaximMK]

There must never be a single leader, a man with more power than the rest, or a highest function dedicated to one man ( President etc. ). The society must be run collectively.

[Break Free1017]

Scrap the idea of a "vanguard party," as a start. Throw it in the garbage. We have no use for it any more. We've seen what an unmitigated failure it has been. No party, or political or ideological group, even if it sincerely desires to do so, will ever succeed in emancipating the working masses by placing itself above or outside them in order to 'govern' or 'guide' them. The working class can only free themselves through direct action. The workers themselves, through their own class organizations (production syndicates, factory committees, cooperatives, etc.) and not under the banner of any political party. Their emancipation must be based on concrete action and 'self-administration,' aided but not controlled by revolutionaries working from within the masses and not from above or apart from them. Any proposition of a party "guiding" the masses is as illusory as that of the Bolsheviks and for the same reasons.

[Break Free1017]

No "vanguard party" even if it sincerely desires to do so, will ever succeed in emancipating the working masses by placing itself above or outside them in order to 'govern' or 'guide' them. We've seen what an unmitigated failure the entire concept of a vanguard party has been. True emancipation can only be brought about by the workers themselves, through their own class organizations (production syndicates, factory committees, cooperatives, etc.) and not under the banner of any political party or ideological body. Their emancipation must be based on concrete action and 'self-administration, aided but not controlled by revolutionaries working from within the masses and not from above or apart from them. Any proposition of a party "guiding" the masses is as illusory as that of the Bolsheviks and for the same reasons.

[Break Free1017]

No "vanguard party" even if it sincerely desires to do so, will ever succeed in emancipating the working masses by placing itself above or outside them in order to 'govern' or 'guide' them. We've seen what an unmitigated failure the entire concept of a vanguard party has been. True emancipation can only be brought about by the workers themselves, through their own class organizations (production syndicates, factory committees, cooperatives, etc.) and not under the banner of any political party or ideological body. Their emancipation must be based on concrete action and self-administration, aided but not controlled by revolutionaries working from within the masses and not from above or apart from them. Any proposition of a party "guiding" the masses is as illusory as that of the Bolsheviks and for the same reasons.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It needs to be a revolution of the working class on its own behalf.

[leftistman]

In order to preserve genuine communism/socialism and freedom, we must avoid a one-party state, state planning, a big government, or anything that leaves room for authoritarianism or a dictator.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I'm wondering what you guys think should be done differently if a revolution were to happen today? How did socialist countries of the past (eventually) fail and what should we learn from them?

Always have a rough plan on hand towards the future the abolition of money.
Always try to be better than the enemy
Have more direct participatory democracy if the situation allows it (as in 'not-war-time')
Have the economy be based on consumer markets instead of price fixing
Prepare the political situation and Educate the Proletariat towards having a completely socialised, centralised (communist) planning system.
Always have workers have a participartory or representative role on major party decisions about their surplus.

[Ostrinski]

How about the worldwide proletariat not failing to come to the aid of the revolution where it initiates.

There's a starter.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Any revolution will have its own unique set of particular issues and challenges based on countless factors from the cause of the insurrection, the state of the ruling class, the organization of our class, etc.

But I think on the most general level the thing that is most important is a class with some independant politics and organic self-leadership. From 1917 to the 1970s, workers spontaniously formed workplace and neighborhood councils, but only once did those temporarily become the way for workers to run society themselves. Rebelling working classes were able to shut down whole countries and cities many times in the 20th century but when the class didn't take power themselves, reformists or reaction took over. So they had economic power, but not polical power. But where worker's took power in Russia, the working class didn't have the economic power and so the workers were eventually suplanted by a (IMO not through intention initially) substitutionist party and then a kind of layer of beurocrats.

So an economically organized, politically independant and self-consious working class would be the best scinerio for liberation in a revolutionary crisis and would be most able to deal with threats to worker's power either from without or within the worker's movements.

[Le Socialiste]

I'm wondering what you guys think should be done differently if a revolution were to happen today? How did socialist countries of the past (eventually) fail and what should we learn from them?

Well obviously times change and not every single circumstance or development during, say, 1917-25 will be wholly applicable to now. That said, a revolution must be a situation in which the social spontaneity of the masses converges with the organizational line of the revolutionary party, which can only be achievable if the latter has properly built up and retained the groundwork and infrastructure necessary for it to adequately engage the periphery (the class). This'll require a heightened understanding of the relationship between theory and practice. Of course, this is merely a framework with which to securely analyze and assess the state of the revolution, the balance of forces, and what is immediately required (with an eye on its short to longterm effects); it cannot substitute itself for the material circumstances within which the radical activity of the average workingwoman or man occurs. The Russian revolution failed, not because of the organizational centralism of the Bolsheviks, but because of the international situation that ushered in defeats and interventions for the global proletariat. The Bolsheviks had to draft their position(s) according to their country's limitations amidst a decline in working-class activity and a worsening diplomatic and economic climate, the seeds of which spurred on the party's degeneration and eventual consolidation under Stalinism.

Point being, the Bolsheviks had a lot of things right. They had the organization, they had the theory realized through continuous practice, they built up the practical and theoretical experience of both their membership and the periphery, and knew - more or less - how to utilize these things accordingly. Our present situation necessitates the building up and advancement of an organization constructed with this tradition in mind, one that adopts organizational rigidity without sacrificing flexibility and adaptability to changes. It must be capable of sound leadership, while simultaneously pursuing and fostering self-emancipative movements from below. Ultimately, the party and the working-class must converge, as mentioned earlier. This tradition has been more or less lost or diluted over time, but it remains historically and tactically relevant (I'd argue).