After The Revolution...

[An archist]

Suppose there is a revoltuion in your country and it was succesful. Of course, various leftists have participated in it: ranging from stalinists to anarchists. The more authoritarian people have taken power, the more anti-authoritarian have raised free communes, obviously not participating in any government bodies or anything, in fact they openly oppose them (they don't fight them, they're just against them).

What happens? Will the authoritarians attack and/or suppress those communes or just leave them alone?
I think it's important to discuss this.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I think genuine workers revolutions will be different from the past.

Authoritarian commies were far more popular than these days.

For example, fascism was supported by some communists in Italy. Mussolini was a communist before a fascist.

Fascism was seen as a different type of democracy. And had far more academic support than it does these days. The Liberal model, was actually fairly left wing, in the early part of the century or at least was comparatively.

Today, in the western world, the Trotskyists are about the largest grouping of communist s. There is no major Stalinist/Maoist contingent.

Workers in the past and currently also organize in very democratic ways, when they are given the chance.

So, if the was a revolution in Britain today, since the Trotskyists have the largest influence of radical parties they will be about the most authoritarian elements. Since they advocate a workers state.

The workers in 1917 was further to the left of the Bolsheviks, so they might very well be in the future too.

If the working class takes political power, the authoritarian elements, if there actually are any worth considering, would likely not have any control over the violent arms of the state.

[Janus]

What happens? Will the authoritarians attack and/or suppress those communes or just leave them alone?
I think it's important to discuss this.
Yes, there is a good chance that suppression will results. It has happened before. That is some libertarian communists do not support these authoritarians period.

But in these historical examples, it was certain small elite groups that took power rather than the entire working class. If there is a mass revolution, then this type of situation will most likely not occur as the people can decide what is best for themselves rather than be controlled by small sects.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I agree with bloody capitalist. The "bolshevik" days are numbered and I think that libertarian organizational forms will be the ones in which workers make revolution.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

A Revolution will only happen when workers are finally fed up - and when they are fed up enough to go destroy the system they had been propagandized to love, they absolutely won't accept any more masters - they will automatically attack anyone who tries to enslave them again, so thus if Stalinists (There are still some, however small) try to take control of them, workers will quickly and efficently revolt against them.

Other than that, after the revolution, everyone will go into a stylized "Commune" in which there are no laws or boundaries, and everyone feels a 'fuzzy' and relieved feeling in themself after having finally reached this climatic moment.

Then everyone can just enjoy life.

(Food: So many office jobs now, if those people worked even a little for food, there would be a huge surplus - no need to worry about feeding the Kids or Old/Sick)

[ComradeOm]

As I stated in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53434), which addresses this exact question, whatever ideology is "most popular" come revolution. To quote myself: "the proletariat will act regardless of whether the hammer and sickle or black flag is hoisted highest." It will act in its own interests.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

It [The Proletariat] will act in its own interests

Yes it will,
Yet Sincere Socialist/Communist/Anarchist interests are one with those of working class.

[Delta]

I think the threat of authoritarianism is more likely if the revolution is threatened by outside capitalist powers. Then you will have people saying "we have to unite under a government to fight the capitalists. We aren't free if we're dead".

The people may be willing to give up some freedom in an attempt to fight against greater evils, and in doing so might end up subjecting themselves to another exploitative system.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

That is why Socialism can only develop when there is a World Revolution at a approx ~ Same time (Days, Weeks) and not "Socialism in One Country" (Stalin Quote)

[vyborg]

the question is ill posed. "suppose there is a revolution" without a party u mean? as, for example, in Budapest 1956? this mean a almost sure defeat.
provided that many workers' party are for a revolution, why they r not able to unite? so we must suppose there will be at least a united front to overthrow capitalism.
the day after this red government will have 2 basic duties.
a) help workers' of other countries to destroy capitalism; b) develop socialist transition economy.

Do these duties imply repression? Not at all, even if we must consider the possibility that the strongest imperialist state will do everything to overthrow the socialist government. so some kind of repression againsta reaction will be, i think, inevitable (they will use terrorist people to create problems etc., they will resorts to military faithful to them etc.).

but again, in no sense this mean repression of other socialists or communists or even liberal.

the only general law will be: anyone can do political activity provided that do not try to restore capitalism.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Yes - as Marx said, it will never be a 'democracy' - for the Worker Class, the 90/99%, will be repressing and supressing the top 1% (Or Redeeming them), and then after that is done, Goverment would be abolished as well, and as democracy is a form of goverment and thus oppression, there would be no democracy.

And of Course when a capitalist power hears of such a drastic event they will send in countless troops and utilize other methods - in the Russian Revolution alone, while the US was fighting in Europe, they were still able to send over 10,000 Troops to Russia to try to fight the Bolsheviks! (10,000 from the US, various other numbers from other nations)

[Ol' Dirty]

First of all, you must give me a context of the revolution. Most things are highly contextual, anyway. There are few object truths, mostly subjective ones.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:28 PM
Do these duties imply repression? Not at all, even if we must consider the possibility that the strongest imperialist state will do everything to overthrow the socialist government. so some kind of repression againsta reaction will be, i think, inevitable (they will use terrorist people to create problems etc., they will resorts to military faithful to them etc.).

but again, in no sense this mean repression of other socialists or communists or even liberal.

the only general law will be: anyone can do political activity provided that do not try to restore capitalism.
I think that depends on who exactly gains power surely?

If we get another Stalin then what's to say he wouldn't encourage some sort of pogroms against those who have differing views on communism? Whereas if we had a party which was committed to eventually having a transition to communism (as opposed to Stalin's earlier ideas) I don't think there would be the kind of repression that was experienced in the USSR because it's unnecessary once the capitalist supporters are out of the way.

Everyone needs to keep each other in check to stop any one person from obtaining too much personal power.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

The Workers would keep everyone in check - I believe Lenin stated somewhere that the vanguard party only existed to lead the workers into the revolution, but would have to be disbanded after the revolution to prevent a democratic-centralist dictatorship of the party or one man, for the vanguard party by definition isn't a party representive of the people directly.

[vyborg]

"if we get another stalin" as stalin came from mars...we surely would get another stalin if we will end in the hopeless situation of the ussr in the 20s: a backward country isolated in a ocean of reaction.

[La Comédie Noire]

What happens? Will the authoritarians attack and/or suppress those communes or just leave them alone?
I think it's important to discuss this.

Yes The Authoritans would most definetley attack the Communes because they would see it as a threat to their vision of a post reveloution land. As for them being successful....

That depends "are the people in question living in extreme poverty?" It goes back to how Fascists came to power in Europe during the 30's, the people were so desperate for anyone who seemed like they knew what they were doing. Alot of people could run to the Authoritans out of a need for hope and leadership.

This could be stopped if the grouping of Communes

1) Had a good Democratic body, that stayed unoppresive. Which could be dissolved quickly when the authoritan powers were disolved.

2) Educate as many people as they could on the dangers presented from the Authoritan goverment to a communist reveloution. Propaganda.

That helps in the short term but as for the long run we would need to keep people constantly informed about what to look out for. This in itself raises a question.

What if people get so used to commune life that they begin taking it for granted and let their guards down and as soon as an economic crisis arose an authoritan power disguised as a saviour could swoop down to take control, what then?

[vyborg]

i dont understand your logic comrade floyd. u speak of an economic crisis as these crisis were a fact of life just like the summer and the winter.
well this is not. economic crisis are a characteristic of capitalism not of human life

[La Comédie Noire]

i dont understand your logic comrade floyd. u speak of an economic crisis as these crisis were a fact of life just like the summer and the winter.
well this is not. economic crisis are a characteristic of capitalism not of human life

I apologize for using the word "economic". I mean say that alot of crops were to die, any crisis that is a threat to life, a group of people could rise up with a "soloution" that entails them forming a goverment that could become authoritan and oppresive. It is like what is going on in Cuba the U.S goverment is putting pressure on them to stop by placing embargos and other restrictions on them, because of this authoritain powers have risen to try to combat the situation. We have to be careful not to be mislead.

[vyborg]

a crisis of course will be always possible (a meteor that threaten to destroy the earth etc.).

the question is that if workers' democracy is operating, any crisis will be solved inside this structure.
does workers' democracy will imply "authoritarianism" well i dont know, maybe, for the workers of that time to judge

[Rawthentic]

I beleive that if the workers are educated correctly on communism and revolutions of the past, which I beleive will be a critical element, they will choose a libertarian path for revolution.

[Dean]

As Vyborg said, it depends heavily on the circumstances of the revolution. Regardless, if a truly productive worker's state were to emerge, stateless, orderly communes outside of gonvermental power would not only be accepted, but welcomed as an end for the rest of the society in question. A workers state should truly represent the interests of the people, to the extent that they eventually purge themselves from their place of power.

Education as propaganda should be dissuaded, however. This leads to mind control; it is only by giving people the freedom to choose that they will choose to be free.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 06:51 AM
As Vyborg said, it depends heavily on the circumstances of the revolution. Regardless, if a truly productive worker's state were to emerge, stateless, orderly communes outside of gonvermental power would not only be accepted, but welcomed as an end for the rest of the society in question. A workers state should truly represent the interests of the people, to the extent that they eventually purge themselves from their place of power.

Education as propaganda should be dissuaded, however. This leads to mind control; it is only by giving people the freedom to choose that they will choose to be free.
But what if those communes are not organised the way the authoritarians would
want them?

EDIT: spelling

[vyborg]

who are the authoritarians?
i can revert the order and ask: what if the authoritarians are not organized as the communes want?