What if...

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

What if after WWII or atleast once Stalin died, the USSR demilitarized. Instead of focusing all of their resources on arming themselves agaisnt the U$ they took care of domestic affairs. I feel this would lead to 7 possibilities...
U$ forsees the success of the USSR and quickly invades to halt the spread of communism :angry:
People everywhere see the utopia (lacking civil liberties) the USSR has become and join whether through armed revolution, democracy, or whatever :D
We were wrong and for some reason communism doesn't (maybe it just stalls in socialism?) :unsure:
People of the USSR become tired of the lack of civil liberties and become counter-revolutionary :o
Bougerious(sp) regain power :o
In a desperate attempt to maintain some semblance of power, governments around the world concede to most of the demands of the working class <_<
Rather than facing a communist world, U&#036; blows up all of Earth :blink:


What are yalls&#39; thoughts? Elaborate or come up with your own scenarios...

[NovelGentry]

Your what ifs are random what ifs. The USSR would have collapsed with or without militarization, it was in essence taken down by it&#39;s own structure, from within the party lines by revisionists and leaders looking out for their own benefit. The only way it could have survived is by stepping away from that kind of structure. Even still, reactionary thought was STILL rampant and it probably would have collapsed under internal power struggles influenced by outside forces. I don&#39;t think it ever woul have been a utopia, and success and thus "jealousy" is not a reason for attack, no matter what Bush says about Osama being "jealous of our freedom." Any invasion that would of happened, by military force or by more subversive means would have been for the same thing it&#39;s always about, expanding market and cheap labor.

[redstar2000]

One could make an argument that the USSR allocated a disproportionate amount of its economic resources to military purposes...and that they might have enjoyed somewhat greater prosperity had they been less profligate with regard to military expenses.

However, you must look at things "through their eyes" to understand their decisions.

Russia was invaded by Germany in World War I, by a number of countries (including the U.S.) during the civil war after the revolution, and by Germany and its allies during World War II. After that war, the U.S. stationed large numbers of troops in western Europe, showing little inclination to bring them home.

You see what I&#39;m saying? Anyone who proposed "demilitarization" to Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev would have been regarded as a nutball&#33;

With considerable justification.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

Your what ifs are random what ifs.

The USSR was the largest experiment with socialism/communism. We should learn from the past to improve our future efforts. I don&#39;t see how it is random to ask about a "what if" about the USSR in the Theory section, especially when iy could potentially change history by simply appropriating more money to things more useful to the people instead of stuff like submarines.


it was in essence taken down by it&#39;s own structure, from within the party lines by revisionists

had there been a better distribution of resources and labour, there wouldn&#39;t be much need for any revisionist.


leaders looking out for their own benefit. The only way it could have survived is by stepping away from that kind of structure

I completely agree. Stalinst-Leninist will continue to ruin any chance we have with their obssession with power. If there was no heirarchy (as in Anarchy)in another expierment, hopefully on a smaller scale, there wouldn&#39;t be any bullshit party elite and "Great Leaders". I don&#39;t completely trust my descions on simple on mundane everyday type of things. How can I, or any reasonable person let someone have complete control over other people.


Even still, reactionary thought was STILL rampant and it probably would have collapsed under internal power struggles influenced by outside forces.

Yes, I should have probably listed that as a possibility. That is the the U&#036;&#39;s favorite tactic. Usually when they stray from this, shit hits the fan (Iraq, Vietnam etc.)


I don&#39;t think it ever woul have been a utopia, and success

That was a choice. Please explain further.


"jealousy" is not a reason for attack

I am pretty sure that we all agree class which can contribute to jealousy is one of the most fundamental instincts of a human. - Not well said, but I hope I got my point across.


it&#39;s always about, expanding market and cheap labor.

I believe that global or far-reaching communism/socialism would create cheaper labor and an expanded market. I believe this because there are more workers available and more people to consume.



After that war, the U.S. stationed large numbers of troops in western Europe, showing little inclination to bring them home.

If you are suggesting a U&#036; invasion...
an invasion into the Soviet Union with or without the Giant Red Army etc. would have ultimately failed. The people in the countries where the U.&#036;. was stationed would have become alienated and probably gone into an underground revolt. The USSR is humongous. It would have been impossible to occupy such a vast area. The U&#036;, the greatest military in history, can&#39;t even succefully occupy Iraq. They were certainly have been in no postion do so then. The Russian winter defeated Napleon and the Nazi&#39;s and would expect it to do severe damage to the U&#036; forces.
If you add in China, the U&#036;&#39;s hopes grow dimmer. India freshly freed from British imperialism would have related to the Soviet cause. Especially since they live in a very strict caste society with an enormous amount of "untouchables" which a literally kept down. That would equal the three largest populations in the world at the time, and almost all of Asia to occupy. That is hard enough to do in RISK, I just don&#39;t think it could have been done.


Anyone who proposed "demilitarization" to Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev would have been regarded as a nutball&#33;

This is true. They were in fact the nutballs. That is one of the reasons I reject the thought of Great Leaders and heirarchy in general.


However, you must look at things "through their eyes" to understand their decisions.

You are right. I don&#39;t really understand the in&#39;s and out&#39;s as well as I should. But please be patient, I am an American and have been brainwashed and fed propoganda since Day 1.

Again, I hope I did the qouting correctly.

We should learn from history, this is just a friendly discussion between comrades. We are all in this together.

[NovelGentry]

The USSR was the largest experiment with socialism/communism. We should learn from the past to improve our future efforts. I don&#39;t see how it is random to ask about a "what if" about the USSR in the Theory section, especially when iy could potentially change history by simply appropriating more money to things more useful to the people instead of stuff like submarines.

But your "what ifs" have no logical justification for why they would of happened, furthermore, I don&#39;t agree that militarization was the reason it collapse. Thus I don&#39;t think you&#39;re really changing anything. Would the people have been better off? possibly. But the USSR failed as a socialist/communist experiment long before WWII if you want my humble opinion, and it would have progressed towards what it became regardless of militarization. It may have taken longer, it may of had a few bright spots along the way, and yes, the US may be VERY different without the cold war, but in the end the USSR would have collapsed to whatever you want to call it today.


had there been a better distribution of resources and labour, there wouldn&#39;t be much need for any revisionist.

There was never a NEED for revisionists. Nor did anyone really want them there except the revisionists. The flaw that allowed them to flourish was a flaw in it&#39;s design and where the power lied. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible TO change the outcome of any experiment such as that, even with another political structure. It would have been a different set of problems, the end result would have been it&#39;s collapse as an "experiment"... although maybe under something else it would have collapsed a bit more gracefully.


I completely agree.

You really twisted what I was saying here by quoting only half of my original statement and starting with "leaders." I have nothing against leaders, I believe leaders are necessary. Leaders under the ideas I uphold, however, would in no way represent the type of positions leaders in the USSR were in. So no, it&#39;s not likely that you do agree with me.


That was a choice. Please explain further.

Explaining this would take a small book. Simply put, the USSR developed from a non-capitalist society. It&#39;s capitalist revolution took the form of the NEP under Lenin, and then it&#39;s socialist revolution took the place under Stalin when he needed to kill off all the petty bourgeoisie created by the allowances of the NEP. The question is very simply, why did these people become this way anyway? Why did they demand free market for crops? If they were revolutionary they would have done otherwise... why did a many number of people then work for these petty bourgeoisie farmers? If they were revolutionary why would they sell their labor like that?

I think it makes very clear that the society wasn&#39;t really ready for what Lenin had to offer, so Stalin tried to make it ready by 1) Industrializing as much as possible. You change material conditions, and you begin to change some of the outlook, but on top of that, if you give people a place to work and provide for them, they will do it when they&#39;re starving. 2) Killing the petty bourgeoisie who formed, after Lenin&#39;s policy allowed them to form as that to begin with. The whole thing was just a mess, period. Trying to bend a country filled with reactionary peasants into socialism and possibly one day communism isn&#39;t gonna go to well... China is yet another example.


I am pretty sure that we all agree class which can contribute to jealousy is one of the most fundamental instincts of a human. - Not well said, but I hope I got my point across.

It may very well be fundamental, but claiming it as purpose for attack is reactionary, plain and simple.


I believe that global or far-reaching communism/socialism would create cheaper labor and an expanded market. I believe this because there are more workers available and more people to consume.

That&#39;s interesting, since you can&#39;t very well have cheap labor with no money. Without money you don&#39;t really have a "market" in the true sense of the word. And under communism you&#39;d never expand because you&#39;re already expanded, it&#39;s a worldwide thing. Socialism would never carry expansion either, it has no need to feed off people willing to work for less, nor should it want to. You work for what your work produces and sustains nothing less, ever.

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

I was just asking a question because I think it is relevant , no matter how bluntly or childishly or naively ask it.

That&#39;s interesting, since you can&#39;t very well have cheap labor with no money. I misspoke. What I meant was, with everyone working together things would be more efficient and therefore "Cheaper"

And under communism you&#39;d never expand because you&#39;re already expanded, it&#39;s a worldwide thing. Socialism would never carry expansion either What I meant was far-reaching, and preventing expansion of capitalism.

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible TO change the outcome of any experiment such as that, even with another political structure. It would have been a different set of problems, the end result would have been it&#39;s collapse as an "experiment"... although maybe under something else it would have collapsed a bit more gracefully.


don&#39;t agree that militarization was the reason it collapse. Thus I don&#39;t think you&#39;re really changing anything.
Not even a little?
I guess you do not believe we should learn from past events? Besides, it is fun to think about. It is sort of an escape from reality and makes me feel happy inside just thinking about a succesful USSR. Sigh. Personally, I feel Russia was not nearly enough ready for communism, like you said...

I think it makes very clear that the society wasn&#39;t really ready for what Lenin had to offer, so Stalin tried to make it ready by 1) Industrializing as much as possible. You change material conditions, and you begin to change some of the outlook, but on top of that, if you give people a place to work and provide for them, they will do it when they&#39;re starving.
Explaining this would take a small book. Simply put, the USSR developed from a non-capitalist society.
Trying to bend a country filled with reactionary peasants into socialism and possibly one day communism isn&#39;t gonna go to well Do you believe any place is ready?


I believe leaders are necessary To what degree?

Leaders had a chance to vastly improve their lives and thus created a new ruling elite. This completley screws up the idea of dictatorship of the proletariate. So leaders, once past revolution, should not exsist, or atleast hold little power. Do you atleast agree with this? If you don&#39;t, could you clarify what you meant by
Leaders under the ideas I uphold, however, would in no way represent the type of positions leaders in the USSR were in.?

If they were revolutionary why would they sell their labor like that?
This may seem to go agaist an anarchist belief, but I believe the general population will atleast put up with the status quo, in hopes of gaining some ground. True revolution is comes from a minority who gets far enough to attract the general population to their cause.
Do yuo atleast agree with me about the parts of a U&#036; invasion agaisnt a nonmilitaristic USSR would have still failed miserably?

But your "what ifs" have no logical justification for why they would of happened
So if I had a time machine a went back to change these events and saw the result and then travelled back in time to the time I was about to travel back in time to tell myself what happened, would that have logical justification? :P
I have read a lot of your posts but still haven&#39;t been able to figure out what you believe to be the best system. I realize I have gone off topic (which according to you, would be good since it wasn&#39;t rational) but could you answer these questions because I am interested in how/what more expeirenced people think.

[NovelGentry]

I guess you do not believe we should learn from past events? Besides, it is fun to think about. It is sort of an escape from reality and makes me feel happy inside just thinking about a succesful USSR. Sigh. Personally, I feel Russia was not nearly enough ready for communism, like you said...

I certainly DO believe we should learn from past events, I don&#39;t think we should attribute the wrong things to their failure though, we should look for what truly caused the problems and avoid doing the same in that sense.


Do you believe any place is ready?

I don&#39;t know much about the specific situation, but I think Germany is in one of the best positions, judging from a historical context and their long standing position as an industrialized super power. They&#39;ve seen capitalism and what happens when reactionary people find appeal in the wrong ideas (fascism)... so on and so on. Honestly, the more I think about it, I think the US is less and less as far off as we think. It&#39;s going to take the third world to become a wide enough consumer market, rather than just being the cheap labor power before we really see change here I think. But I think it&#39;s going to coincide nicely with the downward spiral of capitalism here. Maybe in about 40-50 years we&#39;ll really be seeing a good amount of revolutionary people.

I have a very big habit of underestimating time though.

There are a number of third world countries ready for Leninist or Maoist revolutions, and some are seeing them. But like others they will have their time and then collapse (assuming the 1st world nations remain capitalist).


To what degree?

To the degree that not everyone should be concerned with every thing that has to be done post-revolution. There&#39;s a lot that will need to be done, and the people should always be at the forefront of deciding what&#39;s done. But leaders are influence, they can keep people together, focused, and always pushing ahead. This isn&#39;t to say people can&#39;t do this together, it&#39;s just that their ideas of ahead may differ, and they surely will with leaders existing too. Not everyone sees the world as the same, and you might be conscious and revolutionary, but when there is someone who&#39;s talking who makes sense and who is always moving in that positive direction you want to be in, you begin to put faith in those people. You revere and respect them for their ideas and MOST importantly their respect of you (if they&#39;re a proper leader). In short, no leader exists without followers. It&#39;s the followers who give them power and who should maintain power, but it&#39;s the leaders who will turn that power towards the GREAT goals of humanity which those revolutionary people should gladly make reality.


Leaders had a chance to vastly improve their lives and thus created a new ruling elite. This completley screws up the idea of dictatorship of the proletariate. So leaders, once past revolution, should not exsist, or atleast hold little power. Do you atleast agree with this? If you don&#39;t, could you clarify what you meant by

But before many leaders cared about vastly improving their lives, they actually may have cared about vastly improving the lives of others. It is when they are in a position to become alienated that they do. Remove this alienation, and you remove the possibility of them forming a new class. Remove the power that makes the alienation, and you remove definitively the possibility for them forming a new class.

They will hold little power. More to the point they will hold NO power. The PEOPLE will hold the power. There&#39;s a strange belief that in order to lead you need power, this is crap... the people give you the power. When they follow you, that&#39;s what makes you a leader -- only a leader who already cares more about themselves than the people would ask for that power over those people. There&#39;s no reason to give them the political power, nor should truly revolutionary leaders ask for it.


True revolution is comes from a minority who gets far enough to attract the general population to their cause.

No. This is a revolutionary few who appeal to a reactionary minority and in the end it will not work this way. You attract these people to revolutionary thinking so that they become revolutionary, then the revolution happens and happens right.


Do yuo atleast agree with me about the parts of a U&#036; invasion agaisnt a nonmilitaristic USSR would have still failed miserably?

US would have failed? I&#39;m not so sure about this. Given that it was a reactionary majority within the population. You need at the very least a conscious people to oppose such invasion indefinitely You need a revolutionary people to actually topple the invasion. Unless of course the invaders decide it&#39;s no longer worth their time or money, which they very well might. But is this really a win?


So if I had a time machine a went back to change these events and saw the result and then travelled back in time to the time I was about to travel back in time to tell myself what happened, would that have logical justification?

No, because you never would have been able to change them.


I have read a lot of your posts but still haven&#39;t been able to figure out what you believe to be the best system. I realize I have gone off topic (which according to you, would be good since it wasn&#39;t rational) but could you answer these questions because I am interested in how/what more expeirenced people think.

I don&#39;t believe the best system has been found yet, or if it has it hasn&#39;t been properly defined. This is why I&#39;m writing my book... to give my best go at what I think is the "best system." Whether people will believe it is or not I do not know, whether it actually will be or not, I would only know if one day it&#39;s realized.

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

In short, no leader exists without followers. It&#39;s the followers who give them power and who should maintain power
In the past it has always been the party that has appointed the leaders. You could say the party is made up by the people, but that would be like saying my congressman truly represents me and the people in my district, which I think is not very accurate.

don&#39;t know much about the specific situation, but I think Germany is in one of the best positions, judging from a historical context and their long standing position as an industrialized super power. They&#39;ve seen capitalism and what happens when reactionary people find appeal in the wrong ideas (fascism)... so on and so on. Honestly, the more I think about it, I think the US is less and less as far off as we think. It&#39;s going to take the third world to become a wide enough consumer market, rather than just being the cheap labor power before we really see change here I think. But I think it&#39;s going to coincide nicely with the downward spiral of capitalism here. Maybe in about 40-50 years we&#39;ll really be seeing a good amount of revolutionary people.

I have a very big habit of underestimating time though.
So you feel that Marx was right when he said that all means of capitalism has to be used up first?

When they follow you, that&#39;s what makes you a leader -- only a leader who already cares more about themselves than the people would ask for that power over those people. There&#39;s no reason to give them the political power, nor should truly revolutionary leaders ask for it.

Would you say Che fits this description.

You attract these people to revolutionary thinking so that they become revolutionary, then the revolution happens and happens right.
I think there is no definite answer to whether or not the general population can is revolutionary. I could see how they could be, but I feel they are more likely to hold back and wait for things to develop so if it fails they are not treasonous.

But is this really a win?
I think people like the vietnamese and north koreans would say yes. Their situation may suck now but they kept their independence from the U&#036;.

This is why I&#39;m writing my book... to give my best go at what I think is the "best system."
That&#39;s pretty cool. How long are you from completing it? What are you going to call it?

[NovelGentry]

In the past it has always been the party that has appointed the leaders.

Good thing we&#39;re no longer in the past then.


So you feel that Marx was right when he said that all means of capitalism has to be used up first?

It&#39;s not that all means of capitalism has to be used up first. Capitalism HAS to exist first, yes. It has to develop the material conditions for the proper consciousness and for the proper technology to make communism socially and materially possible.


Would you say Che fits this description.

To some extent maybe, but not completely. Cuba was for all basic purposes of argument, as close to a Leninist revolution as anything else, although a bit less subversive and a bit more focused on longterm physical force. The July 26th movement could have been seen at the early attempts for a "vanguard" to take Cuba. Once they came over on the granma they were very much a traditional vanguard ("We&#39;ve come to free you from the chains of these so called masters&#33;"), and they very much lead like one. Yes they gained support, and never played it out as an official "party" this was because there was really no time for it, they were above a party, they were an army. Granted there are differences, it&#39;s a bit abstract to think of the guerilla forces as a Leninist vanguard, but the situation after the actual revolution showed quite clearly that was it&#39;s nature.


I think there is no definite answer to whether or not the general population can is revolutionary. I could see how they could be, but I feel they are more likely to hold back and wait for things to develop so if it fails they are not treasonous.

Apparently then we have two very different ideas of what it means to be revolutionary.

"hold back and wait for things to develop so if it fails they are not treasonous." ??

This is the most REACTIONARY view they could have.


I think people like the vietnamese and north koreans would say yes. Their situation may suck now but they kept their independence from the U&#036;.

Maybe so, but there&#39;s no need to have either/or when you have a proper revolutionary proletariat.


That&#39;s pretty cool. How long are you from completing it? What are you going to call it?

It is titled "Revolutionary Method, Revolution and Communism in the US and other Advanced Capitalist Nations" it should be comlete sometime in late April or early May.