What would you have done differently?

[Nathyn]

Just an interesting question I thought I'd ask: Say you were alongside other Communists in pre-Soviet Russia, before their revolution. How would you have done things differently? How would the government (if any) be structured?

In case you aren't already aware, I'm not exactly a "revolutionary," leftist in that, while I advocate Communism, I don't believe it is possible to forcefully implement such. I believe that technological advances will make it so that production will require virtually no labor, after which Capitalism itself will be far less efficient than Communism. So, Communism is inevitable. (Several have said "Capitalism is less efficient now" -- could anyone elaborate?).

For now, I oppose Capitalism on ethical grounds, yet support a mixed market on pragmatic grounds, that is, Capitalism yet restricted in such a way to improve the conditions of the poor. This, you apparently call "bourgoisie liberalism." But I have not seen, so far, any proposition for how either Socialism or Communism could be successfully established now.

[YSR]

Than you're clearly not paying attention.

[apathy maybe]

If I had have known what was going to happen, I would have shot Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Rykov, Zinoviev and Kamenev. No doubt there were others that also deserved shooting, but these would have done for a start.

Fuck authoritarians.

[Sentinel]

Just an interesting question I thought I'd ask: Say you were alongside other Communists in pre-Soviet Russia, before their revolution. How would you have done things differently? How would the government (if any) be structured?

Well I'm convinced many (not all) of the bolsheviks were sincere about wanting to build communism. But they had the unfortune of having taken power in a vast, undeveloped country where capitalism was only emerging, while socialism and communism are supposed to be the next step after capitalism has played out it's role.

By which I mean industrialising the country and creating a proletariat. The bolheviks had the material conditions against them, they were before their time. :(

I think the Soviets should have done all they possibly could and a little more to immediately spread the revolution into western europe, where the workers were inspired by the events in Russia but lacked the sufficient power to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Because the state could not easily be abolished in Russia with the powerful capitalist nations remaining next door.

Other than that, I don't know what I would have done differently at that point..


In case you aren't already aware, I'm not exactly a "revolutionary," leftist in that, while I advocate Communism, I don't believe it is possible to forcefully implement such. I believe that technological advances will make it so that production will require virtually no labor, after which Capitalism itself will be far less efficient than Communism. So, Communism is inevitable.

You are partially correct about the important role of technological development in the fall of capitalism in the first world that is to come. But you have yet to come to understand that the owning class will never, ever give it's privileged position away peacefully.

There is going to be bloodshed when the historical epoch changes in the west.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 5 2006, 12:54 AM
Than you're clearly not paying attention.
So far, it's been either Anarchy or direct democracy, neither of which are feasible for reasons I've elaborated upon.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:55 AM

In case you aren't already aware, I'm not exactly a "revolutionary," leftist in that, while I advocate Communism, I don't believe it is possible to forcefully implement such. I believe that technological advances will make it so that production will require virtually no labor, after which Capitalism itself will be far less efficient than Communism. So, Communism is inevitable.

You are partially correct about the important role of technological development in the fall of capitalism in the first world that is to come. But you have yet to come to understand that the owning class will never, ever give it's privileged position away peacefully.

There is going to be bloodshed when the historical epoch changes in the west.
I agree. Except, from an individual perspective, the mechanisms which bring about the revolution will occur no matter what I do. So, it's best for me to just wait and see what everybody else does, rather than engaging in violence and either being arrested and branded a nutcase, or establishing another degenerated workers' state.

[Sentinel]

Except, from an individual perspective, the mechanisms which bring about the revolution will occur no matter what I do. So, it's best for me to just wait and see what everybody else does, rather than engaging in violence and either being arrested and branded a nutcase, or establishing another degenerated workers' state.

I really don't follow you there.. there are countless injustices that no leftist should be able to idly stand by and watch. And even though far from perfect, many of those 'degenerate workers states' have bettered the quality of life for their peoples enormously.

Look at Cuba with it's outstanding statistics for one. Not to mention the USSR which brought the country from a post-feudalist hellhole into a modern, industrial superpower.

Those countries are/were authoritarian and far from the ultimate goal, that I grant you, and agree with, being a leftwing communist myself. But imagine what a revolution in Europe or the US of today could achieve.. It certainly wouldn't slow the progress leading to communism.

The mechanisms you're talking about are bound to happen, yes, but not regardless what you do. See, the development of society is going to radicalise you and make you a revolutionary (if you are working class).

Capitalism becomes more and more brutal. Welfare is being dismantled as 'unnecessary' now that the ruling class becomes increasingly arrogant and sure of it's victory over twentieth century socialism.

The automation of production together with outsourcing of jobs to the third world will cause unemployment, poverty and misery of never before seen magnitude in the west. This is happening as we speak.

People will very soon have no choice but to start engaging in violence, in class warfare. And I don't think they'll rely on any 'enlightened vanguard' this time. Look at the mass protests against the capital people engage in today, or the riots in France recently to get a hint of how it might look like when the masses finally decide to unite and take power.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:33 AM

Except, from an individual perspective, the mechanisms which bring about the revolution will occur no matter what I do. So, it's best for me to just wait and see what everybody else does, rather than engaging in violence and either being arrested and branded a nutcase, or establishing another degenerated workers' state.

I really don't follow you there.. there are countless injustices that no leftist should be able to idly stand by and watch. And even though far from perfect, many of those 'degenerate workers states' have bettered the quality of life for their peoples enormously.

Look at Cuba with it's outstanding statistics for one. Not to mention the USSR which brought the country from a post-feudalist hellhole into a modern, industrial superpower.

Those countries are/were authoritarian and far from the ultimate goal, that I grant you, and agree with, being a leftwing communist myself. But imagine what a revolution in Europe or the US of today could achieve.. It certainly wouldn't slow the progress leading to communism.

The mechanisms you're talking about are bound to happen, yes, but not regardless what you do. See, the development of society is going to radicalise you and make you a revolutionary (if you are working class).

Capitalism becomes more and more brutal. Welfare is being dismantled as 'unnecessary' now that the ruling class becomes increasingly arrogant and sure of it's victory over twentieth century socialism.

The automation of production together with outsourcing of jobs to the third world will cause unemployment, poverty and misery of never before seen magnitude in the west. This is happening as we speak.

People will very soon have no choice but to start engaging in violence, in class warfare. And I don't think they'll rely on any 'enlightened vanguard' this time. Look at the mass protests against the capital people engage in today, or the riots in France recently to get a hint of how it might look like when the masses finally decide to unite and take power.
I don't mean to trumpet the typical rhetoric put forth by Capitalists, however, if Cuba is so great and America is so horrible, why do Cubans flock to America and not vice-versa? And why does Cuba have to outright arrest political dissidents, while America's democracy remains legitimate (with the exception of possible electoral fraud)? And why do people in "Little Havana," in Florida celebrate the possible death of Castro?

America and other western countries have undoubtedly committed many heinous crimes, including now, in Lebanon and Iraq. But oppressive Socialist dictatorships are not preferable, even if they aren't as bad as Stalin or Mao.

I am a working-class American, currently without healthcare and I have to get a job to support myself through college. However, because the first few years of my college was paid for by the government (my parents are retired military), because the government subsidizes my school and provides low-interest loans, I am certain that I will eventually become fairly financially successful. Whereas, in Cuba, what would my financial opportunities be?!

Right now, production cannot be accomplished without compulsory labor. And compulsory labor under a "central planner," even democratic, is oppressive. Until the requirement for labor is eliminated, the closest we can achieve to classlessness is meritocracy.

The establishment of meritocracy is something I would fight for. By "meritocracy," I mean the capability for anyone in a mixed market to go from poor to wealthy or from wealthy to poor based upon their own hard work, rather than ownership of capital. It is "fair capitalism," where the poor, foreign or domestic, are not exploited and the wealthy elite are not propped up in power through government action or inaction. While Communism is superior from an ethical standpoint, I don't think it's worth accidentally re-establishing another Soviet Union over and I do think that the west has done better at eliminating class-conflict than the former Soviet bloc, based upon studies on social mobility. In eastern Europe, not only are poverty rates higher, but it's far more difficult for a poor person to become wealthy than it is in America.

[Sentinel]

I don't mean to trumpet the typical rhetoric put forth by Capitalists, however, if Cuba is so great and America is so horrible, why do Cubans flock to America and not vice-versa?

Because Cuba is still a poor third world nation, and is economically strangled by the US embargo? You can't compare it to the US, you must look at other nations in latin america and the caribbean to get the picture.


And why does Cuba have to outright arrest political dissidents

Because it's besieged by a hostile superpower that sends spies and constantly commits dirty acts trying to overthrow it's government? Those 'dissidents' seldom have honest intent I'm afraid.


And why do people in "Little Havana," in Florida celebrate the possible death of Castro?

Because they are the descendants of the overthrown Cuban ruling class and sworen enemies of the revolution, known as gusanos? What could one expect from those bastards..


I am a working-class American, currently without healthcare and I have to get a job to support myself through college. However, because the first few years of my college was paid for by the government (my parents are retired military), because the government subsidizes my school and provides low-interest loans, I am certain that I will eventually become fairly financially successful. Whereas, in Cuba, what would my financial opportunities be?!

The status of your parents would not determine your abilities to manage to get a living. Your education would be free. You would not have the ability to exploit others and become 'financially successful' though.

But, nathyn, my point was not to praise the leninist regimes here, merely to point out that many of them have developed their countries and been progressive in comparison to the alternative -- a third world nation exploited by imperialism.

What I am trying to say is that a revolution in the west today would most definitely not be a leninist one, and would not lead into a dictatorship of a party or anything we have previously seen, but rather a true dictatorship of the proletariat.

We have the conditions, the technology and the experience. Maybe not yet for communism like it'll look when the process is complete, but atleast to get on the right track.


The establishment of meritocracy is something I would fight for. By "meritocracy," I mean the capability for anyone in a mixed market to go from poor to wealthy or from wealthy to poor based upon their own hard work, rather than ownership of capital. It is "fair capitalism," where the poor, foreign or domestic, are not exploited and the wealthy elite are not propped up in power through government action or inaction.

Any form of capitalism is oppressive because it will never be possible for everyone to become successful. If that meritocracy of yours had a school system where every child got the help they needed to learn and was encouraged to get a high level education, who would do all the work? It's simply not possible to have 'fair capitalism'. That's an oxymoron.

I live in Sweden, the 'example' of all social democracies.. And yet we have a public school system that sucks for a reason. Because it's meant to suck, to deliver new workers for the market.

Capitalism is based on, and dependant of, exploitation. :(

[Clarksist]

So far, it's been either Anarchy or direct democracy, neither of which are feasible for reasons I've elaborated upon.

Anarchism and direct democracy are entirely feasible.

It comes down to the ability to get our ideas out there, otherwise, it is completely feasible.

---- On Topic ----

A good plan would be to set up systems to eliminate party politics and implement proletarian based democracy. Otherwise, a lot of what happened would get eliminated along with the grinding bureacracy and authoritarian structure.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Sentinel+Sep 5 2006, 03:43 AM--> (Sentinel @ Sep 5 2006, 03:43 AM)
I don't mean to trumpet the typical rhetoric put forth by Capitalists, however, if Cuba is so great and America is so horrible, why do Cubans flock to America and not vice-versa?

Because Cuba is still a poor third world nation, and is economically strangled by the US embargo? You can't compare it to the US, you must look at other nations in latin america and the caribbean to get the picture.[/b]
I'd say Cuba's second-world. As for the comparison with the rest of Latin America, I think Soviet Union's aid has a lot to do with it and Costa Rica is superior to Cuba.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:43 AM

And why does Cuba have to outright arrest political dissidents

Because it's besieged by a hostile superpower that sends spies and constantly commits dirty acts trying to overthrow it's government? Those 'dissidents' seldom have honest intent I'm afraid.
Other than historical embarassment, I don't even really see what interest America has in Cuba anymore.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:43 AM

And why do people in "Little Havana," in Florida celebrate the possible death of Castro?
Because they are the descendants of the overthrown Cuban ruling class and sworen enemies of the revolution, known as gusanos? What could one expect from those bastards..


I am a working-class American, currently without healthcare and I have to get a job to support myself through college. However, because the first few years of my college was paid for by the government (my parents are retired military), because the government subsidizes my school and provides low-interest loans, I am certain that I will eventually become fairly financially successful. Whereas, in Cuba, what would my financial opportunities be?!
The status of your parents would not determine your abilities to manage to get a living. Your education would be free. You would not have the ability to exploit others and become 'financially successful' though.

But, nathyn, my point was not to praise the leninist regimes here, merely to point out that many of them have developed their countries and been progressive in comparison to the alternative -- a third world nation exploited by imperialism.
I agree with you there.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:43 AM
What I am trying to say is that a revolution in the west today would most definitely not be a leninist one, and would not lead into a dictatorship of a party or anything we have previously seen, but rather a true dictatorship of the proletariat.

We have the conditions, the technology and the experience. Maybe not yet for communism like it'll look when the process is complete, but atleast to get on the right track.
But how? What I mean is, what EXACTLY would you do differently than Lenin?


[email protected] 5 2006, 03:43 AM

The establishment of meritocracy is something I would fight for. By "meritocracy," I mean the capability for anyone in a mixed market to go from poor to wealthy or from wealthy to poor based upon their own hard work, rather than ownership of capital. It is "fair capitalism," where the poor, foreign or domestic, are not exploited and the wealthy elite are not propped up in power through government action or inaction.
Any form of capitalism is oppressive because it will never be possible for everyone to become successful. If that meritocracy of yours had a school system where every child got the help they needed to learn and was encouraged to get a high level education, who would do all the work? It's simply not possible to have 'fair capitalism'. That's an oxymoron.

I live in Sweden, the 'example' of all social democracies.. And yet we have a public school system that sucks for a reason. Because it's meant to suck, to deliver new workers for the market.

Capitalism is based on, and dependant of, exploitation. :(
Except back to my point earlier: compulsory labor for production and a division of labor are still required, so we can't all be "successful," until Communism. So, in the meantime, meritocracy and mixed markets are preferable. Whereas Capitalism would create a "natural" aristocracy and Socialism would create an "artificial" aristocracy, both of which are contrary to classlessness.

Of course, I'm only talking in terms of America and western countries right now. I have no idea about what would be best for, say, Africa. For them, Socialism might be preferable, such as heavy borrowing from western nations and heavy investment in infrastructure, welfare, education, etc.. I think it would probably hurt global economic growth, but at least African poverty would be alleviated and the playing field between Africa and first-world nations would be leveled, so that they could no longer be so easily exploited.

[Sentinel]

I'm getting really tired and also a wee little bit drunk now, so I'll post a more detailed response to your last post tomorrow, nathyn. There are some things there I find it quite hard to agree with.

But I'd like to say one thing before I go to sleep: I wouldn't do things different than Lenin, the proletariat will. I'm convinced the future revolution in the first world, the one that'll trigger the world revolution, will be one without leaders of the sort the twentieth century ones had. And that is the difference.. ;)

[LoneRed]

putting aside your technocratic implications, It is near impossible to say what we would have done differently, because there is so much more information out there right now that they didnt have in pre-revolutionary russia. Part of this info is what we learned from the whole russian thing. If we were in there position I dont doubt that we would do something similar to what they did. I believe Lenin was a good guy, and i do recognize the historical influences on that event. It wasnt even a capitalist country, It had to industrialize, the working class wasnt even fully developed.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:55 AM
putting aside your technocratic implications, It is near impossible to say what we would have done differently, because there is so much more information out there right now that they didnt have in pre-revolutionary russia. Part of this info is what we learned from the whole russian thing. If we were in there position I dont doubt that we would do something similar to what they did. I believe Lenin was a good guy, and i do recognize the historical influences on that event. It wasnt even a capitalist country, It had to industrialize, the working class wasnt even fully developed.
It suddenly occurred to me that revolutionary socialism is at odds with positivism. I suppose that's another reason why I'm a gradualist.

[Sentinel]

I'd say Cuba's second-world. As for the comparison with the rest of Latin America, I think Soviet Union's aid has a lot to do with it

Perhaps. But I think my point still stands..


Costa Rica is superior to Cuba.

In which ways? Would you care to elaborate as this is news to me. None the less, most of the countries ravaged by US imperialism have terrible living conditions, Haiti etc.


Other than historical embarassment, I don't even really see what interest America has in Cuba anymore.

The US considers the entire western hemisphere as it's backyard. Therefore Cuba is seen as a rebellious province in the 'empire' and a dangerous 'role model' for others.

The same pretty much goes for Venezuela and Bolivia these days, which together with Cuba form sort of a anti-imperialist alliance against US hegemony. The imperialists are losing ground in latin america. :D


Except back to my point earlier: compulsory labor for production and a division of labor are still required, so we can't all be "successful," until Communism. So, in the meantime, meritocracy and mixed markets are preferable. Whereas Capitalism would create a "natural" aristocracy and Socialism would create an "artificial" aristocracy, both of which are contrary to classlessness.

Well even though I would prefer it to capitalism, I don't think a marxist-leninist type of socialism is ever going to be applied in the west, like I've said, so that discussion is pretty much pointless if you ask me.

The revolution will be a people's revolution because people won't put up with vanguards or any types of aristocracies at that point, much due to the history of the Soviet union and the socialist bloc.


Of course, I'm only talking in terms of America and western countries right now. I have no idea about what would be best for, say, Africa. For them, Socialism might be preferable, such as heavy borrowing from western nations

Are you kidding me? Borrowing from western nations is what has made them stay in poverty and total dependance of western imperialism. Independence from said imperialism and solidarity between each other is what's best for them. Socialism and welfare do wonders for these countries though, like can be seen in the Bolivarian Venezuela for one.

After a revolution in the west, things would be different of course.

Now I'm off for a couple of days. I'll check this thread next time on Friday.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 5 2006, 02:42 AM
If I had have known what was going to happen, I would have shot Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Rykov, Zinoviev and Kamenev. No doubt there were others that also deserved shooting, but these would have done for a start.

Fuck authoritarians.
That would have achieved absolutely nothing except to satisfy some political urges. Assasinating top Bolsheviks would have led to further repression and they would have been replaced within the bureacracy by others.

Organised and sustained [workers] direct action against the state, such as Kronstadt for example, would be much more effective. If there had been a thousand Kronstadts, the Bolshevik regime would not have lasted.

[apathy maybe]

I completely agree that mass organisations and mass actions against the authoritarians was needed. However, as an individual, I could not (and cannot) create a mass organisation (though I can join and help out). I can, however, pull a trigger. And given the opportunity, and knowing the bloodshed and oppression that followed the success of the Bolsheviks, I would not have hesitated.

I am not sure that assassinating top Bolshevik would have achieved nothing good. In fact I would go so far as to say, it is quite possible that it would have done more good then harm. Removing the obvious candidates for dictatorship means that there is less likely hood of a dictatorship. Yes new people would have risen through the bureaucracy, but they would have been more hesitant to take obvious power with that threat of a bullet waiting for them.

Talking of bureaucracy, part of the problem with the Bolshevik party was the bureaucracy. I am sure that not everyone in the party was as scumbaggish as Stalin, I am sure that many of them wanted communism sooner rather then later. If these people could have fought and abolished the bureaucracy that would have helped a lot.

[Luís Henrique]

If I had have known what was going to happen, I would have shot Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Rykov, Zinoviev and Kamenev. No doubt there were others that also deserved shooting, but these would have done for a start.

In other words, you would work with Okhrana. :ph34r:


Fuck authoritarians.

How do you call people who kill others because of their political positions? :wacko:

Luís Henrique

[The Grey Blur]

If there had been a thousand Kronstadts, the Bolshevik regime would not have lasted.
Heh...Kronstadt...