Mechanisms of Communism - >

[elijahcraig]

I was wondering what mechanism in marxism there is which will disallow something like Stalin coming to power again?

If we had a revolution at some point this year (for example), we would expect imperialist nations to invade the way they did to Russia. Now, that was one of the major reasons (if not the biggest reason) which caused the rise of Stalin. What is it in Marxism which will keep this from happening?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I think this goes back to where Marx thought the first proletarian revolutions would be. I am sure you know he did not expect peasant-based agricultural societies like Russia and China, but in an advanced bourgeois-democratic state like Germany or the United States.

If the United States government would crumble under leftist revolution, the USA would be in a better position than Russia to defend itself.

First of all, the US has the best technology in the world. The US already has enough industry that an embargo/cease of trade would not kill the US economy. Related to the technology question is the military technology question.

Not only does the US have the largest war machine in the world, we (I am American myself) also provide weapons for many of the other reactionary forces in the world. Israel, who has one of the toughest militaries in the world, would be severely hurt if we cut off military aid to them. NATO uses American guns. Many nations use our equipment. Without us, the imperialists would be in a scramble to get enough weapons to destroy our revolution. That is a serious advantage.

Because of this, I do not think the imperialists could inflict the same damage on the US they did to Russia.

Some people have suggested that some cultures do not expect as much freedom or rights as others. I do not think this is necessarily true, but it is possible that people can base their expectations for life on the ruling structure they live under. For example, people in the west are more interested in personal liberties because we have had them, on paper at least, for decades or even centuries.

If we apply this theory to the early USSR, one may observe lowered expectations in government. When Stalin comes to power, he seems intent to rule as the czars did before him. Is it possible that the Russian people, old enough to have been conditioned to make due under czarist tyranny, might be content or at least apathetic enough to accept a new czar?

What about the United States then? For the last 225 years, the American people have lived under the facade of holding true power. This is a country with a proud heritage of ripping off the yoke of authoritarianism and living free. Of course, one can dispute the historical facts that are looked upon so proudly in our history books, but freedom is looked upon as being as necessary to us as air and water.

Marx saw the communist revolution starting in the most developed parts of the world because the proletariat here would be better educated. This must be taken into account as well.

So the American people, in my most humble opinion, carry a resentment for tyranny (at least where we live, right?) and several years of education to understand a few basic things about politics. This would make a power grab quite difficult here after a proletarian revolution.

Of course, today the American people are rather ignorant more often than not about the nature of politics and economy in the world. This I would attribute to the corporate media, who could certainly be utilized by a would-be tyrant. This may be the most dangerous element among the would-be counterrevolutionaries.

However, the agitators for the revolution will need to teach quite a bit of propaganda jamming to the proletariat before the mass base needed for revolution is assembled. One can only hope these teachings will stick in the minds of workers when the would-be Stalin makes his or her move...

[jehenna]

for as long as there are people willing and able to make war, or suffering, they will be able to do so, even if it is only to those who stand in defense against them (for example a police force).
i should imagine the greatest defense therefore against the misappropriation of a nation would be to have no-one who wished to do such a thing, resulting from the satisfaction of all those involved in that nation, which in non-idealism, will never be the case.
hence i agree with Marxist in Nebraska that in general the protection of the state, would come from the education of the masses, such that sufficient awareness was reached of the dangers of a counter-revolution in terms of internal conflict; while the might of arms would be required to fight an external force (or one much larger such as a significant proportion of the population being the counter-revolutionary forces).

*where counter-revolutionary wouldn't be the term used in a long term state, historically it would be that these people were the new revolutionaries.

[apathy maybe]

I feel that the best way to achive a socialist society is for it to be elected. Then once elected it can make it's reforms and hopfully by the time the next election comes about the people can see that it really is a good way to manage society. By then a more democratice system can be implemented with a democracy it is very hard for any one person to seize power. So long as it is a decent system and the people are not starving on the streets. After all Hitler was elected.

[elijahcraig]

I don't agree about elections, bourgeois idiocy.

[CompadreGuerrillera]

not really, i mean they are a vital part to a democracy. Most examples of "democracies" are societies in which only white male land owners can vote. This is not democracy.

A true democracy should be for all the ppl, to vote on issues, and elect whoever they like for whatever position they like

but o.k.

[elijahcraig]

I didn't explain, I am against bourgeois democracy, elections in a socialist society based on REAL democracy I have no problem with.

[MJM]

Great thread. I agree with what you're saying elijah about bourgeois democracy.

Everytime I think of this I come up with internationalism I think it's the only way to stop tyranny like Stalins. With internationalism comes co-operation not competition. Competition led to the downfall of the USSR, both internal and external competition.

Stalin gave us state capitalism, this in turn led to competition between the two types of capitalism in action. USSRs style of capitalism was far more effective, comparable to the type of things going on around the industrial revolution maybe - remembering that russia was still freeing itself from fuedalism, in some places primitive communism it's little wonder.
Competition within USSR in the early days led to things like internal passports, labour armies, glorious 5 year plans etc. Years later USSR would spend all it's money competing with the west, which led to it's ultimate collapse. None of this would have happen if there was co-operation instead of competition.

[redstar2000]

Although I am more inclined to "bet" on western Europe as the first site of 21st century communist revolutions (rather than the United States), I agree that only the threat of real pain (probably meaning a credible nuclear deterrent) to the remaining imperialist powers will enable the new communist society to consolidate itself without fear of imperialist invasion.

Should there be communist revolutions in France, Germany, and several other neighboring countries, that should provide sufficiently favorable conditions (all other things being equal) to avoid a "Stalin" or anything like that.

But there is no "mechanism" in Marx or anywhere else that "automatically" prevents a Stalin. People have to be clear about what kind of new society they want and what they have absolutely no intention of tolerating "in the name of the revolution".

One of the best reasons for beginning to build communism on "day one" after the revolution is that there is never a centralized authority with sufficient prestige for a Stalin-wannabe to take control of...even if you're "Comrade General Secretary" of the Berlin Commune, no one else is going to flop on their bellies for you.

That's a good thing.

:cool:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

MiN (marxist in Nebraska)


First of all, the US has the best technology in the world. The US already has enough industry that an embargo/cease of trade would not kill the US economy. Related to the technology question is the military technology question.

Don't be mistaken, the power of the American and Western Industry drives on the import of cheap raw materials and after costumizing a few things selling it back at a higher price.

An embargo would stop the flow of raw materials and the industry would collapse. How great your tools may be, you'd always need materials.

Russia on the other hand did have the raw materials, a solid base to build an industry on. The USA doesn't have enough raw materials to feed their entire industry. Not a solid base.

Here a little example, The worst backer (feudialist Russia) would be more productive then the best backer (devoloped USA), when the worst backer does have materials and the best not.

So raw materials are a nessecary part and without it the power of a leftist USA would be slim to nothing on economic area.
-------

However a revolution or drastic political swift to the advantage of letists in the USA would have succes when some (leftist) countries with enough raw materials would join in a sort of alliance. Providing the US with materials.

---

Every country is always very weak after a revolution, there are always people resisting. The swift change of captalist to communist makes the country also very weak, especially on the economic area.

So to help a country through it's first rough years, you need to make a sort of (economic) alliance.

The advantages of an alliance are big. Materials that your own country doesn't have to bought from expensive captalist countries, but rather from other leftist countries.

This also supports Internationalist Leftism and weakens captalism.

The alliance could also helps a country on par example military era. A well organised and experienced army would be very effective against invasions such as at the Bay of Pigs - Cuba.

A partisan army of revolutionaries is by far not so effective as a proffesional army, such as the Red Army of the 80's. The friendly army could help to stabilize a country and resist foreign invasions.

This al helps to speed up the proces of establishing a socialist government and system.

[Sabocat]

Quote: from CCCP on 11:42 am on July 21, 2003
MiN (marxist in Nebraska)


First of all, the US has the best technology in the world. The US already has enough industry that an embargo/cease of trade would not kill the US economy. Related to the technology question is the military technology question.

Don't be mistaken, the power of the American and Western Industry drives on the import of cheap raw materials and after costumizing a few things selling it back at a higher price.

An embargo would stop the flow of raw materials and the industry would collapse. How great your tools may be, you'd always need materials.

Russia on the other hand did have the raw materials, a solid base to build an industry on. The USA doesn't have enough raw materials to feed their entire industry. Not a solid base.

Here a little example, The worst backer (feudialist Russia) would be more productive then the best backer (devoloped USA), when the worst backer does have materials and the best not.

So raw materials are a nessecary part and without it the power of a leftist USA would be slim to nothing on economic area.
-------

However a revolution or drastic political swift to the advantage of letists in the USA would have succes when some (leftist) countries with enough raw materials would join in a sort of alliance. Providing the US with materials.

---

Every country is always very weak after a revolution, there are always people resisting. The swift change of captalist to communist makes the country also very weak, especially on the economic area.

So to help a country through it's first rough years, you need to make a sort of (economic) alliance.

The advantages of an alliance are big. Materials that your own country doesn't have to bought from expensive captalist countries, but rather from other leftist countries.

This also supports Internationalist Leftism and weakens captalism.

The alliance could also helps a country on par example military era. A well organised and experienced army would be very effective against invasions such as at the Bay of Pigs - Cuba.

A partisan army of revolutionaries is by far not so effective as a proffesional army, such as the Red Army of the 80's. The friendly army could help to stabilize a country and resist foreign invasions.

This al helps to speed up the proces of establishing a socialist government and system.



What raw materials does the U$ lack?

It's true that the U$ goes offshore to import a lot of materials, but for the most part that is because of lower cost from exploited countries and workers. Corporations see only improved margins and profits. Everything else to them is superfluous.

I suspect that the U$ is one place the revolution could happen succesfully because of it's self sufficiency and abundance of raw materials.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I strongly doubt if they have all the materials their industry needs and if their resources are enough.

Par example oil, the US does have oil, but it's not enough and extracting that oil would be very expensive.
So expensive that I think it would be better to bond an alliance that benefits the US and some 3th world countries.

However I do believe that the US is a very good spot for a leftist government, but I think that alliances would be better for all.

Like someone here said, not competing but coöperating is the best for an economy.

But the ignorance, hate towards commies and the blind fate that the most civilians have in their government, suggests that the chance that it would happen there are very slim.

A great candidat for a revo would be the UK.

(Edited by CCCP at 5:19 pm on July 21, 2003)

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Comrade CCCP,
The United States do in fact have tremendous natural resources. It is true that the US does not have enough oil to suit its needs, but that could be remedied by pursuing other sources of power (solar, wind power). If we quit using oil in power plants and embraced mass transit (two big ifs, I grant), we could have enough oil to support a mechanized defense force.

As far as alliances go, a leftist US could befriend Chavez and get oil from Venezuela. With intelligent consumption, Venezuelan oil would certainly give the USA all it would need.


A great candidat for a revo would be the UK
Does this mean you think the UK would be a great spot for the revolution to start? If so, it seems rather incoherent when you suggest the US lacks the resources to fight off the capitalists. The UK has nowhere near the resources the USA has.

As far as influence and power goes, the UK has been reduced to a "junior partner" to the USA, as Noam Chomsky said in a recent interview. A communist UK would be a fairly easy revolution to smash, in my opinion.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I suggested the UK, not from the point of view of power on worldpolitics or natural resources.

But because the Brittisch people are in general less loyal to their government, critize more, etc. I see a revolution hapening there much faster.

The problem is then, that a Brittish leftist government would be crushed relative easy.

But to hold ground, they would need to have the help of a strong leftist government. Who could supply materials, soldiers etc. Just unntill the new government is strong enough to resist foreign presure on it's own.

That brings us to a next problem, there isn't any strong leftist government nowadays. The most have even problems with resisting internal problems.

(I didn't count China in, since I don't consider them communistic or leftist in the slightest meaning of the word.)

An alliance would help then, sure most nations can mis some money, goods or troops to establish a new leftist government.

With the current attitude of the American people, I couldn't imagine that they would overthrow Bush or the government. I don't even see this happening with the following generations of Americans.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

But because the Brittisch people are in general less loyal to their government, critize more, etc. I see a revolution hapening there much faster.

Comrade CCCP,
Do you know of the journalist Greg Palast? He is an American, but works in the UK. I recently read his book (The Best Democracy Money Can Buy). He gives a very different perspective. He is troubled to find many in the British press, and the public in general, grant legitimacy to authority without question. He feels that Europeans are far less rebellious than the people back in the US. He finds that many Europeans will complain, but they ultimately shrug their shoulders and comply. Do you disagree with this? What has been your experience?

[apathy maybe]

What I meant by democracy, was that once a left gov was elected it could change the democracy to make it more democratic. So that all people can vote and get elected. If there is a revulution however, there is more likelyhood of there being a leader becoming a dictator. A revulution is an ideal bed for growing leaders that people will follow everywhere. Look at Lenin. Once people are used to having a non elected leader then when he/she dies it is more easy for someone like Stalin to come to power.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Marxist in Nebraska on 10:38 pm on July 21, 2003

But because the Brittisch people are in general less loyal to their government, critize more, etc. I see a revolution hapening there much faster.

Comrade CCCP,
Do you know of the journalist Greg Palast? He is an American, but works in the UK. I recently read his book (The Best Democracy Money Can Buy). He gives a very different perspective. He is troubled to find many in the British press, and the public in general, grant legitimacy to authority without question. He feels that Europeans are far less rebellious than the people back in the US. He finds that many Europeans will complain, but they ultimately shrug their shoulders and comply. Do you disagree with this? What has been your experience?


I myself life in Holland. I have neither been to the USA nor Brittain. But I judged from the point of view the media makes on me.

The BBC does dare to stand up against their own government ( the Kelly affaire).

While the main US media follows the government like a sheep follows a shepherd.

Furthermore, most Americans who I have spoken, like my nepfew don't want to stand up against the government. Rather they are not interrested in politics (like most people) and believe that the US has the right system and that eveything is "OK". But that there are just a few "rotten apples".

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Comrade CCCP,

The BBC does dare to stand up against their own government ( the Kelly affaire).
There is a difference between offering dissent and calling for revolution. Has the BBC ever called for the destruction of Blair's government?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

No but the US media delivers in my opinion even less critisizm on the government.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Certainly the mass media in the United States will only retard the growth of the revolution. I have never claimed the media here would bring the downfall of capitalism. We need independant media to bring the leftist viewpoint to the working class. But still, the BBC is far from revolutionary...