How to avoid a dictatorship

[Redhead]

After a socialist revolution, how can we avoid it being turned into a dictatorship? There will always be some greedy persons who just want power.

[motion denied]

We shouldn't avoid it.

:D

[Lord Testicles]

I propose we strangle any would-be masters.


We shouldn't avoid it.

:D

http://images.tibiabr.com/hotnews/i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Assuming you're talking about a personal dictatorship rather than a class dictatorship (obviously we want a class dictatorship!), what do you mean "how do we avoid it"? Whether the revolution degenerates - which does not necessarily lead to personal dictatorship, mind - depends on the ability of the revolution to spread. If you have a revolution that is limited to one backward country, it will degenerate.

[Magón]

Depends I guess, on how a revolution would go about. I mean, when I think or hear "post-revolution", I equate that to everything having been changed and settled, and society is truly egalitarian. Otherwise, the revolution would still be ongoing (in my way of seeing things,) and how we would handle a possible dictator-type then, probably has a simple answer to it. Like spray them with a squirt-bottle, and tell them, "No! Bad!" Or whatever.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's quite simple. In communism politics has disappeared, and instead we have collective administration. Collective administration concerns collective consumption and the issues that are subject to collective decision-making are of a technical and practical nature. It will be decisions about lampposts, libraries, and such issues. These are far removed from issues of high politics. Therefore, it is (nearly) impossible for a charismatic leader to pursue hegemony through these practical non-political issues -- you cannot stage a 'coup' over lampposts. How will a would-be dictator convince people to give up power then?

[Redhead]

Assuming you're talking about a personal dictatorship rather than a class dictatorship (obviously we want a class dictatorship!), what do you mean "how do we avoid it"? Whether the revolution degenerates - which does not necessarily lead to personal dictatorship, mind - depends on the ability of the revolution to spread. If you have a revolution that is limited to one backward country, it will degenerate.

I am talking about a personal dictatorship as in Kim Jong Il, Stalin etc. Not dictatorship of the proletariat

[Magón]

It would be pretty difficult, post-revolution to have someone try and make themselves dictator over others somewhere. As I said, post-revolution usually means that things have settled and a egalitarian society has been formed. And as Tim said, the biggest discussions between people would be likely local, than anything else, so unless a dictator type tries declaring some sort of hate towards another commune (assuming communes are post-revolution entities,) it would be difficult. And even then, trying to incite hatred towards another commune would be kind of pointless/very hard to achieve.

[Redhead]

I think i have to specify my question. It also concerns during the revolution, where society is at its most vulnerable. One of my points is how did the countries such as USSR, Cuba, China become dictatorships, and thus stride from the path of communism.

[Sinister Intents]

Does it matter? Even anarchy can be defined as a dictatorship, this depends on the tendency though. Certainly an anarchic/communist society will be a dictatorship in some regard.

[Redhead]

Does it matter? Even anarchy can be defined as a dictatorship, this depends on the tendency though. Certainly an anarchic/communist society will be a dictatorship in some regard.

Let me specify even more: im talking about a non-democratic state system where theres a single person/small group who controls everything in a centralized system.

[ChrisK]

I think i have to specify my question. It also concerns during the revolution, where society is at its most vulnerable. One of my points is how did the countries such as USSR, Cuba, China become dictatorships, and thus stride from the path of communism.

Well, the USSR was in the unfortunate position of the German Revolution failing. After that point the revolution wasn't going to succeed, so it was easy for Stalin to take over.

The Chinese Revolution was part of a continuation (with differences) of Stalinist style rule.

The Cuban Revolution was a guerrilla takeover that didn't claim communist sympathies until later.

Edit: Basically dictatorships occur when revolutions fail or they aren't revolutions of the working class.

[Sinister Intents]

Let me specify even more: im talking about a non-democratic state system where theres a single person/small group who controls everything in a centralized system.

A classless society is a dictatorship too though, even without a single party/individual in power, society will be ruled bt individuals, and this will be a dictatorship in the sense they'll maintain that system through force, all individuals will have power, and all individuals will rule society in anarchy. Dictatorship is rather contextual, no?

Anarchy can still be called a classless, stateless, Dictatorship

[Redhead]

Personally im against a vanguard party, because i think havimg an "elite" of revolutionary leaders makes it easy for them to take control of the power and stear the society in their own interest. That is my view of vanguardism, but i am still learning about marxism, so if im wrong or you disagree please say so. My mind is always open for learning :)

[Lord Testicles]

A classless society is a dictatorship too though, even without a single party/individual in power, society will be ruled bt individuals, and this will be a dictatorship in the sense they'll maintain that system through force, all individuals will have power, and all individuals will rule society in anarchy. Dictatorship is rather contextual, no?

Anarchy can still be called a classless, stateless, Dictatorship

The word dictatorship has a specific meaning for a purpose, if we start to call everything a dictatorship then nothing is a dictatorship. So no, a classless, stateless society is not a dictatorship.

[Creative Destruction]

A classless society is a dictatorship too though, even without a single party/individual in power, society will be ruled bt individuals, and this will be a dictatorship in the sense they'll maintain that system through force, all individuals will have power, and all individuals will rule society in anarchy. Dictatorship is rather contextual, no?

Anarchy can still be called a classless, stateless, Dictatorship

This is getting nitpicky. He was pretty clear in that he was using the common notion of a dictatorship.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

In communism politics has disappeared
On the contrary, "Man is a political animal in the most literal sense: he is not only a social animal, but an animal that can be individualised only within society." - Marx.... (I agree with the sentiment of your post, I'm just being difficult :P )


Personally im against a vanguard party, because i think havimg an "elite" of revolutionary leaders makes it easy for them to take control of the power and stear the society in their own interest. That is my view of vanguardism, but i am still learning about marxism, so if im wrong or you disagree please say so. My mind is always open for learning :)
In an army, a vanguard advances ahead of the army to test the strength of the opposition, scout out good battlegrounds and is prepared to spring traps and face the opposition first. It is no more or less important than the rest of the army; it couldn't completely defeat the opposition without the bulk of the army supporting it etc. Hence, in the working class the 'vanguard' is that layer of revolutionary workers already striving to smash capital, to bring about socialism etc. A vanguard party, therefore, is the idea that to more effectively destroy capitalism the vanguard, those layer of workers already convinced of revolution, should be organised into one united force.

This is the conception of the vanguard party but material conditions inevitably mean things aren't so neat. However, the failures of the Russian Revolution, as suggested by ChrisK, lay in the failure of the revolution to spread throughout Europe - that's another discussion altogether almost.

[Red Commissar]

We should see if we can even do a revolution before we worry about what happens after it. Not that it's not a legitimate concern, just that I don't really even confident we can reach that stage right now. Best we can do right now is discourage organization structures which encourage power being concentrated into a single figure.

[Sinister Intents]

The word dictatorship has a specific meaning for a purpose, if we start to call everything a dictatorship then nothing is a dictatorship. So no, a classless, stateless society is not a dictatorship.

Very true XD I was over thinking it

Though I did start a thread on TAB about anarchy being a dictatorship in certain contexts before I deleted tge forum

[robbo203]

In an army, a vanguard advances ahead of the army to test the strength of the opposition, scout out good battlegrounds and is prepared to spring traps and face the opposition first. It is no more or less important than the rest of the army; it couldn't completely defeat the opposition without the bulk of the army supporting it etc. Hence, in the working class the 'vanguard' is that layer of revolutionary workers already striving to smash capital, to bring about socialism etc. A vanguard party, therefore, is the idea that to more effectively destroy capitalism the vanguard, those layer of workers already convinced of revolution, should be organised into one united force.
.

But a vanguard party that failed to become a mass party - thereby negating itself as a "vanguard" party - and sought to capture power in advance of becoming a mass party would, in fact, find itself in a position of administering capitalism - a system that can only be operated against the interests of the mass of the population.

Such a vanguard party would then become, quite simply, a new ruling class. Which is precisely what happened in the case of the Bolsheviks. The Bolshevik revolution paved the way to Soviet state capitalism. It was in other words, essentially a capitalist revolution that highjacked the terminology of socialist revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

Assuming you're talking about a personal dictatorship rather than a class dictatorship (obviously we want a class dictatorship!), what do you mean "how do we avoid it"? Whether the revolution degenerates - which does not necessarily lead to personal dictatorship, mind - depends on the ability of the revolution to spread. If you have a revolution that is limited to one backward country, it will degenerate.

OOOH! Why put the word 'backward' in there?

1 - the Russian Empire was the 5th biggest economy on earth in 1913;
2 - Russia had the world's largest (as some of the most technologically advanced too) factories before the revolution;
3 - Russia had some massively concentrated areas of proletarians;
4 - the development in any single country is not relevant to the revolutionary process/potential, it is the development of world capitalism that is the issue.

No country, alone, is ever 'ripe for socialism'. Russia wasn't in 1917, the USA isn't in 2014. It doesn't matter. The revolution doesn't have to stay in one territory.

[RedWorker]

Well, there was a massive amount of peasants and only a few workers. And does the "5th" refer to per capita? I was under the impression that the Russian Empire's economy sucked.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

OOOH! Why put the word 'backward' in there?

1 - the Russian Empire was the 5th biggest economy on earth in 1913;
2 - Russia had the world's largest (as some of the most technologically advanced too) factories before the revolution;
3 - Russia had some massively concentrated areas of proletarians;
4 - the development in any single country is not relevant to the revolutionary process/potential, it is the development of world capitalism that is the issue.

No country, alone, is ever 'ripe for socialism'. Russia wasn't in 1917, the USA isn't in 2014. It doesn't matter. The revolution doesn't have to stay in one territory.

I didn't mean to imply that a revolution isolated to one of the countries of advanced capitalism would remain undegenerated indefinitely. Obviously, however, there is an objective difference - a Soviet America might have weathered a few more months of isolation. Russia was backwards, not because it lacked elements of advanced capitalism, but because these existed alongside pre-capitalist survivals and forms one would generally expect in the colonies.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, there was a massive amount of peasants and only a few workers. And does the "5th" refer to per capita? I was under the impression that the Russian Empire's economy sucked.

A myth put about by Stalinists and Mensheviks.

"Oh look at glorious First Secretary Comrade Uncle Joe guided by the Wise and Beneficient Spirit of Glorious Grandad Lenin who managed turn a shithole into a paradise in only 35 years!"

Doesn't really work as well if you say "look at the Soviet Union, which moved from being the 5th biggest economy in the world, to being the 8th, in 35 years".

And of course the neo-Mensheviks like to say "yeah, they should never have had the revolution in Russia, it didn't even have telephones and there were farmers all over the place".

There were more workers in Russia than in some countries of Western Europe. Sure, there were millions and millions of peasants. So what? Who thinks socialism could have been built in Russia anyway? Not Lenin or Trotsky.


I didn't mean to imply that a revolution isolated to one of the countries of advanced capitalism would remain undegenerated indefinitely. Obviously, however, there is an objective difference - a Soviet America might have weathered a few more months of isolation. Russia was backwards, not because it lacked elements of advanced capitalism, but because these existed alongside pre-capitalist survivals and forms one would generally expect in the colonies.

True, Russia's empire was contiguous with the imperial metropole - a bit like if Britain had been physically attached to India and Australia or something. But I'm not sure 'pre-capitalist survivals' had entirely been eradicated (or, with all due respect to Rosa Luxemburg, even have now) in Europe and the US or other parts of advanced capitalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

True, Russia's empire was contiguous with the imperial metropole - a bit like if Britain had been physically attached to India and Australia or something. But I'm not sure 'pre-capitalist survivals' had entirely been eradicated (or, with all due respect to Rosa Luxemburg, even have now) in Europe and the US or other parts of advanced capitalism.

Alright, but the thing is, these pre-capitalist survivals were not an important part of the economy. In Central Asia, nomadic (what Lenin called "patriarchal", which has another meaning these days) agriculture was among the most important branches of the economy; generally, the agriculture of the Russian Empire was extremely backward (the mir system in particular), yet it was one of the pillars of the Russian economy. Also the importance of artel and kustar production is hard to overstate, I think.

[Blake's Baby]

Thought the mir died out in the 1880s? Just at the point when Marx was writing to Zasulich that it could, potentially, form the basis of a transition to socialist society, it was practically dead.

I think capitalism continually generates 'non-capitalist' production, even in advanced capitalism. I think it probably is an important part of production. Co-ops (the equivalent of artels I think) exist in a good many advanced capitalist countries.

But, I don't understand why you're arguing that the Russian economy was backward (it wasn't, it was simultaneously advanced and backward, not one or the other), when you don't think the relative-backwardness (or not) has any bearing on whether Russia was ripe for socialism. As to your idea that a 'Soviet Republic of America' could perhaps (on the basis of its relatively more advanced economy) have lasted a few more months before succumbing - yeah, why not? A few months more or less sounds about right I think.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Thought the mir died out in the 1880s? Just at the point when Marx was writing to Zasulich that it could, potentially, form the basis of a transition to socialist society, it was practically dead.

I think capitalism continually generates 'non-capitalist' production, even in advanced capitalism. I think it probably is an important part of production. Co-ops (the equivalent of artels I think) exist in a good many advanced capitalist countries.

But, I don't understand why you're arguing that the Russian economy was backward (it wasn't, it was simultaneously advanced and backward, not one or the other), when you don't think the relative-backwardness (or not) has any bearing on whether Russia was ripe for socialism. As to your idea that a 'Soviet Republic of America' could perhaps (on the basis of its relatively more advanced economy) have lasted a few more months before succumbing - yeah, why not? A few months more or less sounds about right I think.

Private proprietors surpassed the mir when it came to profitability, but as I recall it, even after the Stolypin reforms, the mir remained, and in fact the number of peasants in the obshchine increased under Military Communism as "separators" returned to the obschina. As for artels, it is my understanding that they were not quite cooperatives in the Owenite sense - they were something between a cooperative, a guild and a commune (this is not true, of course, when it comes to Soviet "land artels", but these were another thing entirely). In fact, I'm not sure to what extent the Petrine guilds were eliminated by the time of the October Revolution.

And yes, the Russian economy was an example of what Trotsky called combined and uneven development - concentrations of advanced capitalist enterprise and the attendant proletariat mired in a backward economy full of pre-capitalist survivals. I don't think Russia was "not ripe for socialism" whereas America was, that would be Menshevism of the worst sort.

My point is simply that there is a difference - a revolution "in the belly of the beast" would be able to respond to the international situation more effectively etc. Which is not to say that we should make it our programmatic distinction to push for revolution in "the First World" exclusively and above all in some parody of Third-Worldism (what would we say to the proletariat of the neo-colonies? "well, alright, but the workers of America are not ready so hush"?). But it would be the most favourable scenario if the revolution were to happen in America, in the EU etc.

[Blake's Baby]

I think you're over-complicating things.

It doesn't matter where the revolution starts. Russia, the US, DR of Congo, Brazil, Australia, Italy, China, Canada, Argentina, Germany - not important. What is important is that it happens everywhere as soon as it can. Without the world proletariat throwing itself into the fray the revolution will fail wherever it breaks out.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think you're over-complicating things.

It's what I do.

Actually what I do is grade reports, but I can't be arsed so I nitpick on the Internet.


It doesn't matter where the revolution starts. Russia, the US, DR of Congo, Brazil, Australia, Italy, China, Canada, Argentina, Germany - not important. What is important is that it happens everywhere as soon as it can. Without the world proletariat throwing itself into the fray the revolution will fail wherever it breaks out.

Here I would object that revolutions are not simple, uncomplicated things - they advance and retreat, suffer defeats and breakthroughs; sometimes a revolution is "exported" onto an unwilling population and sometimes revolutionary upsurges in isolated regions are strangled by the counter-revolution because they could not link up with the main revolutionary area. Therefore, I think the region in which the revolution "happens" first does matter.

Just as an example, a Soviet America would have been much more able to assist Bavarian and Hungarian revolutionaries than Soviet Russia was.

The question about Petrine guilds was genuine, by the way - I haven't been able to find out much about them post-1900. Anyone who can help is encouraged to do so.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Here I would object that revolutions are not simple, uncomplicated things - they advance and retreat, suffer defeats and breakthroughs; sometimes a revolution is "exported" onto an unwilling population...

No, really, no.


... and sometimes revolutionary upsurges in isolated regions are strangled by the counter-revolution because they could not link up with the main revolutionary area. Therefore, I think the region in which the revolution "happens" first does matter.

Just as an example, a Soviet America would have been much more able to assist Bavarian and Hungarian revolutionaries than Soviet Russia was...

I agree that sometimes revolutionary upsurges are strangled. I don't think this means that where the revolution happens first matters. If it doesn't happen anywhere else, then it's not 'the world revolution' and therefore it's not what's under discussion. Yes, an isolated revolution in (let's say) southern Brazil will fail. That's not because it's in southern Brazil, it's because it's isolated. Any isolated revolution will fail, wherever it is; and therefore, where a revolution starts is not important, what its important is extension.

I don't think the examples would have been true. Soviet America would have been less able to help Bavaria or Hungary (no access to them except through other capitalist states, and also much further away) than the Soviet Republic.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No, really, no.

So if the population in Baldakhshan did not want the revolution (and in fact, what little population existed in Baldakhshan seems to have had Basmachi sympathies), it is not revolutionary when the capitalist and pre-capitalist forms of property were smashed in that mountainous district? That sounds odd to me. A revolution is not a plebiscite.


I agree that sometimes revolutionary upsurges are strangled. I don't think this means that where the revolution happens first matters. If it doesn't happen anywhere else, then it's not 'the world revolution' and therefore it's not what's under discussion. Yes, an isolated revolution in (let's say) southern Brazil will fail. That's not because it's in southern Brazil, it's because it's isolated. Any isolated revolution will fail, wherever it is; and therefore, where a revolution starts is not important, what its important is extension.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, because the workers of Germany did not rise up at the same time as those in Russia - the October revolution had no possibility of becoming a world revolution? That seems bizarre, to me, and I am not trying to be uncharitable, but that's what you seem to be implying.


I don't think the examples would have been true. Soviet America would have been less able to help Bavaria or Hungary (no access to them except through other capitalist states, and also much further away) than the Soviet Republic.

And also much greater economic and military power - to bore a corridor through Europe if necessary, as capitalist America did to rescue the Czechoslovak Legion. Not to mention that American forces, who would be generally inclined to side with a Soviet American government, were already in Europe.

[Rafiq]

The problem was primarily political. The working class was an overwhelming demographic minority. It doesn't matter if there were 100 million workers - if the country constituted 2 billion peasants, there is a problem. Because politically, claims were not made to an independent Petograd or whatever (which would be impossible), but to all of Russia. This is ignoring the fact that most of the industrial workers died in the civil war.

And pre war production levels were achieved in 1928, so Blake, obviously there was major improvement. Russia being the 8th largest economy reflected the emergence of other economies - one thing is certain, Soviet Russia was not a step back as far as development go. And what constitutes having a large economy anyway?

[Redistribute the Rep]

I agree that sometimes revolutionary upsurges are strangled. I don't think this means that where the revolution happens first matters. If it doesn't happen anywhere else, then it's not 'the world revolution' and therefore it's not what's under discussion. Yes, an isolated revolution in (let's say) southern Brazil will fail. That's not because it's in southern Brazil, it's because it's isolated. Any isolated revolution will fail, wherever it is; and therefore, where a revolution starts is not important, what its important is extension.

The revolution is not going to happen everywhere at once, all revolutions are "isolated" before they spread, and yes, whether or not it spreads may be contingent upon its location and role in the global capitalist order. You almost make it seem like there's either one simultaneous revolution or a revolution in perpetual isolation. It's a false dichotomy.

[Blake's Baby]

So if the population in Baldakhshan did not want the revolution (and in fact, what little population existed in Baldakhshan seems to have had Basmachi sympathies)...

You'll have to explain to me what you think 'Basmachi sympathies' mean here 870. 'Basmachi' means 'bandit'. Are you claiming the whole of Badakhshan wanted to be bandits? Or are you using Basmachi to mean 'localist uprising against legitimate proletarian authority'? Because I think in the revolution there may be all sorts of localist mystifications going on. I rarely think that sending the army in is going to be effective.


... it is not revolutionary when the capitalist and pre-capitalist forms of property were smashed in that mountainous district? That sounds odd to me. A revolution is not a plebiscite...

A revolution isn't the self-emancipation of the working class if it's delivered by someone else out of the barrel of a gun.




...
So, if I'm reading you correctly, because the workers of Germany did not rise up at the same time as those in Russia - the October revolution had no possibility of becoming a world revolution? That seems bizarre, to me, and I am not trying to be uncharitable, but that's what you seem to be implying...

'No possibility'? Where did I say that?

Because the revolution failed to successfully spread to Germany and elsewhere, it was doomed, if that's what you're asking.

Timeframe for death of the revolution? More than weeks. Less than decades.


...
And also much greater economic and military power - to bore a corridor through Europe if necessary, as capitalist America did to rescue the Czechoslovak Legion...

You cannot compare the actions of a capitalist power with the actions of the revolution. Did Poland 1920 teach you nothing? You cannot export revolution at the point of a bayonet.


... Not to mention that American forces, who would be generally inclined to side with a Soviet American government...

I really think you're overestimating this. I don't remember the German army in the Baltic saying 'hey we have revolutionaries at home, let's join the Bolsheviks' - more's the pity. I remember them going home to fight the communists, and I suspect those US forces you assume would immediately side with the revolution would instead be sent back to the USSA on British and French ships to fight the St Loius Commune or the Chicago Soviet or whatever.



... were already in Europe.

Russia isn't in Europe now?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You'll have to explain to me what you think 'Basmachi sympathies' mean here 870. 'Basmachi' means 'bandit'. Are you claiming the whole of Badakhshan wanted to be bandits? Or are you using Basmachi to mean 'localist uprising against legitimate proletarian authority'? Because I think in the revolution there may be all sorts of localist mystifications going on. I rarely think that sending the army in is going to be effective.

I am talking about the anti-Bolshevik Basmachi (I am not sure they could be called "localist" in light of the role of foreign anti-Bolshevik officers in these disturbances). And apparently sending in the army worked out quite well - as it did in Bukhara, in Khiva, the Far East and so on.


A revolution isn't the self-emancipation of the working class if it's delivered by someone else out of the barrel of a gun.

The working class is one and global - there are no local working classes, and if the relatively backward proletariat in one locale resists the revolution, what are the revolutionary authorities supposed to do, nothing? That sounds more like federalism than socialist centralism to me - one section of the proletariat has been given the prerogative to ruin things for the rest of the class.


'No possibility'? Where did I say that?

Because the revolution failed to successfully spread to Germany and elsewhere, it was doomed, if that's what you're asking.

Timeframe for death of the revolution? More than weeks. Less than decades.

So obviously there was a period when the revolution was (at least temporarily) isolated in Russia but capable of expanding. Do you really think what are the revolution is isolated in has no influence on its ability to spread?


You cannot compare the actions of a capitalist power with the actions of the revolution. Did Poland 1920 teach you nothing? You cannot export revolution at the point of a bayonet.

As I said, it certainly worked in Central Asia, the Caucasus and so on.


I really think you're overestimating this. I don't remember the German army in the Baltic saying 'hey we have revolutionaries at home, let's join the Bolsheviks' - more's the pity. I remember them going home to fight the communists, and I suspect those US forces you assume would immediately side with the revolution would instead be sent back to the USSA on British and French ships to fight the St Loius Commune or the Chicago Soviet or whatever.

The Baltic German forces were generally not soldiers from Germany - these were organising soviets in Germany itself - but the hired forces of the Baltic German nobles.

[Blake's Baby]

...


The working class is one and global - there are no local working classes, and if the relatively backward proletariat in one locale resists the revolution, what are the revolutionary authorities supposed to do, nothing? That sounds more like federalism than socialist centralism to me - one section of the proletariat has been given the prerogative to ruin things for the rest of the class...

The working class is the revolutionary authority.

"...if the relatively backward proletariat in one locale resists the revolution, what is the working class supposed to do, nothing?"

Argue. Demonstrate the superiority and advantages of the working class overthrowing capitalism and the state. You can't shoot workers to freedom.



...
So obviously there was a period when the revolution was (at least temporarily) isolated in Russia but capable of expanding. Do you really think what are the revolution is isolated in has no influence on its ability to spread?
...

Sorry, missed this bit when originally posted.

I don't think the revolution 'expands' so much (though it's useful enough as a word) as ignites in multiple places. Petrograd and Berlin and Budapest and Munich and ... - it doesn't necessarily 'spread' like a bacterium, you don't 'catch' revolution from your neighbour. If there was a revolution in Spain - for example - I'd expect rapid outbreaks in France and Portugal and Italy and Morocco, but I'd also expect outbreaks to rapidly occur in Mexico and Argentina and the Philippines, as well as Greece and Ireland and Britain and Poland. The first group, being immediate neighbours, I'd think would be affected by the immediate bacillus of revolution. The second group I'd think would be rapidly affected by the propaganda around the revolt in Spain - because of the close cultural and linguistic connections there would be a response in those countries; the third group I would see as being more to do with the economic ties of Spain (in the EU) and the similarity of conditions in other places to Spain - if the working class in Spain is at the point of revolt there is likely to be widespread discontent in Greece and Ireland and other countries too.

The revolution is a world affair. The causes of the revolution are worldwide causes. It's not that one country's proletariat suddenly for no reason decides to throw off its chains and workers elsewhere for no reason decide 'that seems like jolly good fun'. That's not how revolution 'spreads' in my opinion.


...As I said, it certainly worked in Central Asia, the Caucasus and so on...

Oh, yeah, because all of those places were a) never any trouble in the civil war and b) totally fine afterwards.



...
The Baltic German forces were generally not soldiers from Germany - these were organising soviets in Germany itself - but the hired forces of the Baltic German nobles.

Yeah some of them were back in Germany, organising soviets. I'm not sure where you get your info on the origins of the Freikorps from, I'm not aware that they were significantly drawn from non-German strata of the population.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

ensure that any revolution involves a fundamental change in the nature of the social system, not merely a transfer of state power to a party that professes socialist/communist ideology.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The working class is the revolutionary authority.

That is an entirely abstract formulation. First of all, obviously as long as the revolution is confined to one area, the working class (there is only one!) can't be the revolutionary authority. It would be a right laugh if we were able to have the advanced proletariat in Cuba or America or Tajikistan have a say in how the revolution that is momentarily confined to Brazil (for example) is administered, if nothing else to see the nationalists and localists sweat, but it can't be done. Second, the working class is not one homogeneous mass - it contains numerous layers, some of which are advanced and some of which are backward, petit-bourgeois in orientation, partially peasant or declassed, and which form the material basis for various deviations from socialism - in the crucial phase of the revolution, then, only the advanced layers can exercise a dictatorship.


"...if the relatively backward proletariat in one locale resists the revolution, what is the working class supposed to do, nothing?"

Argue. Demonstrate the superiority and advantages of the working class overthrowing capitalism and the state. You can't shoot workers to freedom.

You don't shoot people to make them free. You shoot people to make them dead. There is quite a difference. And it's not a pleasant conclusion, but sometimes you have to shoot people - including workers - in order to preserve the gains the working class as a whole has made. If the armies of the reaction are made up of proletarians, are you going to stop, argue and demonstrate? No. Obviously it would be useful to split the army of the counterrevolution along class lines as well - that happened with the People's Army of the KomUch for example - but until that happens, you shoot. If the proletarian authorities need oil and the workers in Baku are under localist and Menshevik illusions, do you stop until they've changed their mind?

Generally, the point is not for every individual group of workers to "free itself" but for the working class to destroy capitalism. If that means stepping on the toes of certain groups of workers, so be it.


Sorry, missed this bit when originally posted.

I don't think the revolution 'expands' so much (though it's useful enough as a word) as ignites in multiple places. Petrograd and Berlin and Budapest and Munich and ... - it doesn't necessarily 'spread' like a bacterium, you don't 'catch' revolution from your neighbour. If there was a revolution in Spain - for example - I'd expect rapid outbreaks in France and Portugal and Italy and Morocco, but I'd also expect outbreaks to rapidly occur in Mexico and Argentina and the Philippines, as well as Greece and Ireland and Britain and Poland. The first group, being immediate neighbours, I'd think would be affected by the immediate bacillus of revolution. The second group I'd think would be rapidly affected by the propaganda around the revolt in Spain - because of the close cultural and linguistic connections there would be a response in those countries; the third group I would see as being more to do with the economic ties of Spain (in the EU) and the similarity of conditions in other places to Spain - if the working class in Spain is at the point of revolt there is likely to be widespread discontent in Greece and Ireland and other countries too.

Alright, this is certainly something that happens. The proletariat in Russia revolts, and then you have unrest in Germany, a workers' government in Hungary, soviets in Bavaria and so on. But it also spreads, by the victorious proletariat forcing its will on localities that resist - on Tashkent, on Georgia, on Yakutia, on Arkhangelsk and so on.


The revolution is a world affair. The causes of the revolution are worldwide causes. It's not that one country's proletariat suddenly for no reason decides to throw off its chains and workers elsewhere for no reason decide 'that seems like jolly good fun'. That's not how revolution 'spreads' in my opinion.

I think this underestimates the role of consciousness of the workers. Of course, capitalism is presently mired in periodic crises. But it can weather each of them - it's not going to fall on its own accord (crises of capitalism don't automatically produce revolutions). What needs to happen is, the workers need to consciously set out to overthrow bourgeois rule. And the victory of the proletariat in one region gives a powerful impetus to socialist consciousness.


Oh, yeah, because all of those places were a) never any trouble in the civil war and b) totally fine afterwards.

Russia wasn't totally fine afterwards, so I fail to see the point. And of course there was trouble - but capitalism had been overthrown in those regions, even if the local proletariat didn't want that, in the mean.


Yeah some of them were back in Germany, organising soviets. I'm not sure where you get your info on the origins of the Freikorps from, I'm not aware that they were significantly drawn from non-German strata of the population.

You were talking about the German soldiers fighting the Bolsheviks in the Baltic, not the Freikorps. The units of the German army that were supposed to fight against the Bolsheviks by the Compiègne armstice were generally demoralised and ineffective. They were replaced by the Baltische Landswehr, a force drawn mainly from the Baltic Germans.