One arguement we continue to avoid

[Lardlad95]

And that is the lack of production following both a revolution and a democratic election of a socialist movement.

The first few years production plummets, creating a hole which the govt. has to climb back out of.

This is especially harsh since the larger production lapses are in farming.

Thus creating food, stagnating the economy and causing famine.

While I have presented this problem before it has been rarely adressed.

The plummet in production is one of the reasons that socialism ends in failure most of the time.

Because the production fluxuates.

In the beggining it plummets like a stone in a pond, rises and eventually levels off, only to go through a period of heavy fluxuation.


Without securing this fluxuation and securing heavy productivity in the begining stages the govt. will be to heavily burdened to secure their place.

This was one of the priblems that led to the downfall of Salvador Aiende

So Comrades I ask you YET AGAIN

how do we solve the productivity problem in the early stages and beyond

[Som]

By not having revolution without the producers themselves.

Its inevitable if the switch is between a stick and a peoples stick.

Its not really something that needs addressing because theres no specific answer, every country has different situations that they must adapt to, and theres no universal answer.

[redstar2000]

I think one kind of answer would be a clear sense of priorities.

Electricity, water, and heating utilities must take first place. Routine maintenance of these functions must not be postponed to deal with other matters.

Transportation of goods and people must be restored as quickly as possible. A modern city has enough food in storage to feed itself for about a week...then shortages appear unless transportation has been restored.

To the extent that people feel that basic services are "reliable", their morale and productivity will gain...but if they feel that the whole world is "coming apart", they are unlikely to do anything but live from crisis to crisis...and perhaps wish for a counter-revolution to "restore normality".

The "little things" count. I read once a book on the communist experiment in Yugoslavia and learned that over a 40-year period there were only brief periods when toilet paper was readily available. Inspite of the fact that half the population of that country (like almost all countries) was female, there were never sufficient supplies of sanitary napkins and tampons.

In the years immediately preceeding the revolution, efforts should be made by qualified people to determine more precisely what needs to be done initially...and what can wait a year or two.

Morale is crucial to the success of the revolution in its earliest and most difficult years...if we don't pay attention, it will rise up and bite us in the ass!

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Som on 6:16 am on Mar. 22, 2003
By not having revolution without the producers themselves.

Its inevitable if the switch is between a stick and a peoples stick.

Its not really something that needs addressing because theres no specific answer, every country has different situations that they must adapt to, and theres no universal answer.



There should be a basic idea that is adaptable to every situation

but instead of trying to solve it we just give into one fuck up after another

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:25 pm on Mar. 22, 2003
I think one kind of answer would be a clear sense of priorities.

Electricity, water, and heating utilities must take first place. Routine maintenance of these functions must not be postponed to deal with other matters.

Transportation of goods and people must be restored as quickly as possible. A modern city has enough food in storage to feed itself for about a week...then shortages appear unless transportation has been restored.

To the extent that people feel that basic services are "reliable", their morale and productivity will gain...but if they feel that the whole world is "coming apart", they are unlikely to do anything but live from crisis to crisis...and perhaps wish for a counter-revolution to "restore normality".

The "little things" count. I read once a book on the communist experiment in Yugoslavia and learned that over a 40-year period there were only brief periods when toilet paper was readily available. Inspite of the fact that half the population of that country (like almost all countries) was female, there were never sufficient supplies of sanitary napkins and tampons.

In the years immediately preceeding the revolution, efforts should be made by qualified people to determine more precisely what needs to be done initially...and what can wait a year or two.

Morale is crucial to the success of the revolution in its earliest and most difficult years...if we don't pay attention, it will rise up and bite us in the ass!

:cool:


Yes I agree that the basic needs of life are what make people feel secure.

We can not allow them to feel that they are being deprived.


However I don't think moral is the only thing that matters.


We must also make the transition between govt. stable.

Getting people their basic needs is of course important.

However the transition from Capitalism to Socialism is so drastic that it could take months to make sure everything is in place.

We need to shorten this time.

Within two weeks we should have all major factories back up and running

with a govt. rep their to over see changes.


We can't wait for the govt. to sit their and get things ready. They need to already be prepared.


Most people focus on the revolution and not post revolution

[Just Joe]

the reason most Socialist governments have had initial slumps in productivity is simple...the revolutions were followed by Civil War! Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and other former Socialist countries all went through civil wars before restoring order.

the key is to avoid it. if it can't be helped, fight it and win in as quick a time possible. easily said but there really is nothing more you can do.

it is a myth that Socialism halts production. East Germany out produced West Germany in many sectors, and there economy was centralised. with more worker control and incentive, Socialism could destroy any free market in the world.

[Hegemonicretribution]

This doesn't seem like a vewry hard problem to adress, the key problem has often been that of sanctions. Trade may well be restricted, but there are two options: One to do this on a scale that makes it the main economic policy worldwide, trading with socialist countries becoming more commonplace than that of capitalists would force others to join, and if most current partners continue as normal there would need not be any slumps, infact because we are far too protectionist (we don't even get free trade) we would have more.


The other option would not work for a country, this could be implemented on the small scale, being tyotally self sufficient, however you would either have to live in some tropical uncharted area, or be rich enough to own land, and have the government turn a blind eye.

However as both are either unrealistic (in the first case) Or somewhat pointless (to the masses in the second case) there must be another option.

I say (although am pro-life relative pacifist etc) fuck it! Go all out fucking anarchy, die now and benifit later, we will not reach a utopia without sacrifice, unless we can find enough spare conciences for the top 1% or so. If they aren't willing to budge then give them nothing worth being stubborn for.

That is similar to the Iraq situation at the moment, the can't get Saddam, so they will bomb the shit out of "his" country till there is nothing worth running anymore...I asked myself whether or not they had learned anything from Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima etc..But I realised they had. They realised if you are totally heartless, inefficient and overwhelmingly powerful you will succeed.

So once again, I have (as we all do) my own little plans or ideas for how to go about changing things, but that is a last resort. Quit this make do stuff, grit our teeth and look foward to a future that we may never see....Then again many before have not lived to see their achievments and dreams realised.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Just Joe on 7:38 pm on Mar. 22, 2003
the reason most Socialist governments have had initial slumps in productivity is simple...the revolutions were followed by Civil War! Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and other former Socialist countries all went through civil wars before restoring order.

the key is to avoid it. if it can't be helped, fight it and win in as quick a time possible. easily said but there really is nothing more you can do.

it is a myth that Socialism halts production. East Germany out produced West Germany in many sectors, and there economy was centralised. with more worker control and incentive, Socialism could destroy any free market in the world.



I never said it halted production

I said that it fluxuates which is true.

It very well may be stable, but sooner or later it falters.

Something that hasn't happened in the US, to an extent

some years may be better than others but the rises and falls aren't so great, with the exception of the great depression.

Ok considering your civil war theory is true

THen how do you fix it for a democraticaly elected socialsit party?

ANd how after the civil war do you secure it?
THe fluxations would still happen even if a civil war was contained

1) because a new govt. is in place

2) the old govt. is completely different than the new one

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 8:00 pm on Mar. 22, 2003
This doesn't seem like a vewry hard problem to adress, the key problem has often been that of sanctions. Trade may well be restricted, but there are two options: One to do this on a scale that makes it the main economic policy worldwide, trading with socialist countries becoming more commonplace than that of capitalists would force others to join, and if most current partners continue as normal there would need not be any slumps, infact because we are far too protectionist (we don't even get free trade) we would have more.


The other option would not work for a country, this could be implemented on the small scale, being tyotally self sufficient, however you would either have to live in some tropical uncharted area, or be rich enough to own land, and have the government turn a blind eye.

However as both are either unrealistic (in the first case) Or somewhat pointless (to the masses in the second case) there must be another option.

I say (although am pro-life relative pacifist etc) fuck it! Go all out fucking anarchy, die now and benifit later, we will not reach a utopia without sacrifice, unless we can find enough spare conciences for the top 1% or so. If they aren't willing to budge then give them nothing worth being stubborn for.

That is similar to the Iraq situation at the moment, the can't get Saddam, so they will bomb the shit out of "his" country till there is nothing worth running anymore...I asked myself whether or not they had learned anything from Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima etc..But I realised they had. They realised if you are totally heartless, inefficient and overwhelmingly powerful you will succeed.

So once again, I have (as we all do) my own little plans or ideas for how to go about changing things, but that is a last resort. Quit this make do stuff, grit our teeth and look foward to a future that we may never see....Then again many before have not lived to see their achievments and dreams realised.


You answered on the long term with trading, sanctions, etc.

However trade can not be reestablished with in the first week following a revolution.


How do keep your international image up, while getting the country back in order.

Foriegn relations wont exactley be as tight as they could be post revolution

[Just Joe]

I never said it halted production

I said that it fluxuates which is true.

thats the nature of economics. the United States economy from 1920-1990 fluctuated a million times more than the Soviet economy from the same time. that was one of Marxs' major critisisms of capitalism, the fluctuation in the market.

there nothing really you can do. only deal with individual problems in a specific way. fluctuating production could be a result of a number of things from low moral to alienation. each problem is dealt with differently.

It very well may be stable, but sooner or later it falters.

don't make the mistake in thinking a truly Socialist economy has ever existed. the economies of Eastern Europe met the needs of the Moscow military machine, not the people. the reason was because there was no democracy in these economies, only dictatorship. Socialism is economic democracy. there is little difference, if youre a worker, between taking orders from the state and taking orders from a Capitalist. both methods ultimatly alienate you from your own labour.

Something that hasn't happened in the US, to an extent

some years may be better than others but the rises and falls aren't so great, with the exception of the great depression.

yeah but it didn't really happen even in the deformed Socialist states of eastern Europe. there was no big 'crash' that happened. production slowed for the same reasons it does in free market economies.

Ok considering your civil war theory is true

THen how do you fix it for a democraticaly elected socialsit party?

a main cornerstone of democratic socialism is slow change. socialism would be implemented by slow nationalisation and gradually increasing economic democracy.

ANd how after the civil war do you secure it?
THe fluxations would still happen even if a civil war was contained

1) because a new govt. is in place

2) the old govt. is completely different than the new one

i'm not sure what ur saying here. fluctuations are not exclusive to Socialism. there gonna happen its just how to contain them. unlike many, i think Socialism is not only the best economic system, but the most efficient. i think it is the only system that can contain market crashes or mass fluctuations.

[Just Joe]

tell me if i've misunderstood what ur saying. i'm not 100% sure what ur gettin at.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 8:47 pm on Mar. 22, 2003

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 8:00 pm on Mar. 22, 2003
This doesn't seem like a vewry hard problem to adress, the key problem has often been that of sanctions. Trade may well be restricted, but there are two options: One to do this on a scale that makes it the main economic policy worldwide, trading with socialist countries becoming more commonplace than that of capitalists would force others to join, and if most current partners continue as normal there would need not be any slumps, infact because we are far too protectionist (we don't even get free trade) we would have more.


The other option would not work for a country, this could be implemented on the small scale, being tyotally self sufficient, however you would either have to live in some tropical uncharted area, or be rich enough to own land, and have the government turn a blind eye.

However as both are either unrealistic (in the first case) Or somewhat pointless (to the masses in the second case) there must be another option.

I say (although am pro-life relative pacifist etc) fuck it! Go all out fucking anarchy, die now and benifit later, we will not reach a utopia without sacrifice, unless we can find enough spare conciences for the top 1% or so. If they aren't willing to budge then give them nothing worth being stubborn for.

That is similar to the Iraq situation at the moment, the can't get Saddam, so they will bomb the shit out of "his" country till there is nothing worth running anymore...I asked myself whether or not they had learned anything from Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima etc..But I realised they had. They realised if you are totally heartless, inefficient and overwhelmingly powerful you will succeed.

So once again, I have (as we all do) my own little plans or ideas for how to go about changing things, but that is a last resort. Quit this make do stuff, grit our teeth and look foward to a future that we may never see....Then again many before have not lived to see their achievments and dreams realised.


You answered on the long term with trading, sanctions, etc.

However trade can not be reestablished with in the first week following a revolution.


How do keep your international image up, while getting the country back in order.

Foriegn relations wont exactley be as tight as they could be post revolution


I was actually refering to the short term, get the countries doing it all at once and things could happen nearly instantly, but as for the first week, if it was a joint effort they could stockpile.

However I said this is very unlikely, so why see it as a flaw or problem with communism? Just say it is a neccesary transition phase for the greater good. It will bring the people together, they have no choice. People would have to be in the spirit of things.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 12:24 am on Mar. 23, 2003

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 8:47 pm on Mar. 22, 2003

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 8:00 pm on Mar. 22, 2003
This doesn't seem like a vewry hard problem to adress, the key problem has often been that of sanctions. Trade may well be restricted, but there are two options: One to do this on a scale that makes it the main economic policy worldwide, trading with socialist countries becoming more commonplace than that of capitalists would force others to join, and if most current partners continue as normal there would need not be any slumps, infact because we are far too protectionist (we don't even get free trade) we would have more.


The other option would not work for a country, this could be implemented on the small scale, being tyotally self sufficient, however you would either have to live in some tropical uncharted area, or be rich enough to own land, and have the government turn a blind eye.

However as both are either unrealistic (in the first case) Or somewhat pointless (to the masses in the second case) there must be another option.

I say (although am pro-life relative pacifist etc) fuck it! Go all out fucking anarchy, die now and benifit later, we will not reach a utopia without sacrifice, unless we can find enough spare conciences for the top 1% or so. If they aren't willing to budge then give them nothing worth being stubborn for.

That is similar to the Iraq situation at the moment, the can't get Saddam, so they will bomb the shit out of "his" country till there is nothing worth running anymore...I asked myself whether or not they had learned anything from Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima etc..But I realised they had. They realised if you are totally heartless, inefficient and overwhelmingly powerful you will succeed.

So once again, I have (as we all do) my own little plans or ideas for how to go about changing things, but that is a last resort. Quit this make do stuff, grit our teeth and look foward to a future that we may never see....Then again many before have not lived to see their achievments and dreams realised.


You answered on the long term with trading, sanctions, etc.

However trade can not be reestablished with in the first week following a revolution.


How do keep your international image up, while getting the country back in order.

Foriegn relations wont exactley be as tight as they could be post revolution


I was actually refering to the short term, get the countries doing it all at once and things could happen nearly instantly, but as for the first week, if it was a joint effort they could stockpile.

However I said this is very unlikely, so why see it as a flaw or problem with communism? Just say it is a neccesary transition phase for the greater good. It will bring the people together, they have no choice. People would have to be in the spirit of things.

I think all the other revolutionaries were hoping the same thing.

I don't think famine is something the people will use to bring themselves together.

If I can't feed my family I'm gonna be pissed nad more likely to dissent

[Hegemonicretribution]

Well I suppose yes, but I think if the other capitalist countries washed their hands of you, and bordering countries closed their borders (not you closing yours) Then dissent wouldn't get you anywhere. I still think any revolutionary attempt should have food stockpiled, and people educated quickly in basic survival techniques like water collection. (Leaflet drops.)

If commune living could be encouraged before a revolution, or transition, people could adapt better. These are only things that we need to consider when one of us gets the balls to try something, (or a re old enough to vote...this is the internet ;)) Seriously though, it is great to plan, but People don't know when, where or how, I see these as the first questions to ask.

[Monks Aflame]

hmm... it seems like you would have to get everyone (or at least a large majority), meaning all citizens in the country and the rest of the world to support a revolution. Otherwise people are afraid. If the US had a revolution now, it would fail. The American people are blind. The media cannot be trusted, but they don't know that. Through cutting throats, the US has managed to amass quite a bit of money, and it almost seems as if it's too late to turn back and revolt. Perhaps this Earth has gone too far, and we must wait for another Universe to be a utopia. But in the spirit of striving and solidarity, I would say if a majority of countries around the world supported a revolution (with funding and supplies, before, after, and during) it would work quite successfully.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Monks Aflame on 9:12 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
hmm... it seems like you would have to get everyone (or at least a large majority), meaning all citizens in the country and the rest of the world to support a revolution. Otherwise people are afraid. If the US had a revolution now, it would fail. The American people are blind. The media cannot be trusted, but they don't know that. Through cutting throats, the US has managed to amass quite a bit of money, and it almost seems as if it's too late to turn back and revolt. Perhaps this Earth has gone too far, and we must wait for another Universe to be a utopia. But in the spirit of striving and solidarity, I would say if a majority of countries around the world supported a revolution (with funding and supplies, before, after, and during) it would work quite successfully.

The majority of countries have a minority of power though. Those with the power control the institutions, and do so in their own interests at heart. Basic arguments and observations about the bourgouisie can be applied to countries also.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 8:57 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
Well I suppose yes, but I think if the other capitalist countries washed their hands of you, and bordering countries closed their borders (not you closing yours) Then dissent wouldn't get you anywhere. I still think any revolutionary attempt should have food stockpiled, and people educated quickly in basic survival techniques like water collection. (Leaflet drops.)

If commune living could be encouraged before a revolution, or transition, people could adapt better. These are only things that we need to consider when one of us gets the balls to try something, (or a re old enough to vote...this is the internet ;)) Seriously though, it is great to plan, but People don't know when, where or how, I see these as the first questions to ask.


Do you really think people will believe that some communist zealots dropping leaflets are going to suceed?


Some will believe but the majority wont.


The key is preparation.

What we need to do is have people prepped to get in their and run the major needed industries atleast in major cities.

That way we keep the majority of the population happy.

Once we get that secured we spread out to the smaller ones

[sc4r]

I think I begin to see what you are gettying at. To answer it you probably have to draw a couple of important distinctions and accept a couple of things :

1) You wont get revolutionary change in mahor countries. These are going to become gradually socialist not suddenly; so the issue of preparation for sudden change does not really arise.

2) In smaller countries the key thing is (as you say) to esnure that their external trade is not saboutaged as it was in Cuba and their internal workings are not sabotaged (as in venezuela).

Acieveing this latter without a large external supporter (like the USSR for its faults used to be) is hideously difficult and probably means that no recognisable revolution can occur successfully in a small country unless it is both self sufficient and has a very desirable expoert indeed. Even in countries that do meet these criteria you thave to (I think) be prepared to sacrifice your principles at least for the short term and effectively bribe key workers with unfairly high reward. Maybe the best way to do this is to employ freelance expatriots who are recognisably not being given the long term benefits of a socialist society and are in return being used merely as highly paid mercenaries.

There probably is no ideal solution in the absence of a large well funded socialist unit operating in the world. Its about time (in my view) that we socialist recognised this and found a way to organise our capital in a pan-national way so that it can do this.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 3:49 am on Mar. 24, 2003

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 8:57 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
Well I suppose yes, but I think if the other capitalist countries washed their hands of you, and bordering countries closed their borders (not you closing yours) Then dissent wouldn't get you anywhere. I still think any revolutionary attempt should have food stockpiled, and people educated quickly in basic survival techniques like water collection. (Leaflet drops.)

If commune living could be encouraged before a revolution, or transition, people could adapt better. These are only things that we need to consider when one of us gets the balls to try something, (or a re old enough to vote...this is the internet ;)) Seriously though, it is great to plan, but People don't know when, where or how, I see these as the first questions to ask.


Do you really think people will believe that some communist zealots dropping leaflets are going to suceed?


Some will believe but the majority wont.


The key is preparation.

What we need to do is have people prepped to get in their and run the major needed industries atleast in major cities.

That way we keep the majority of the population happy.

Once we get that secured we spread out to the smaller ones


I meant leaflet drops to teach about how to cope with a possibility of fending for yourself for a week. Having a survival tips book or leaflet isn't left wing propaganda, it would just be precautionary.

Yes I agree preperation is the key, that why I suggested as above.

[Monks Aflame]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 5:11 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
The majority of countries have a minority of power though. Those with the power control the institutions, and do so in their own interests at heart. Basic arguments and observations about the bourgouisie can be applied to countries also.

are you saying all countries are just as corrupted as the US in the sense that the ones with the money control everything and they aren't willing to let go of it? are there any countries that would support revolution?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I suppose those that are already socialist would support a revolution. However they would as it would support their own interests, they would benifit themselves, eg Cuba.

Just as the bourgoisie would look after their own interests, so would rich countries. I am guessing the leaders would not be in power too long if they didn't.

I just think the basic argument of Marx can be applied to nations.

The bourgoisie posess power, money etc. eg Britain
The proltariat (majority) have labour, but little power or cash, and lack the means to progress. eg Indonesia
The land owners, they are high in resources. eg Much of south America.

Of course countrie's are a mixtre...Rich may have resources and power etc

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 8:08 pm on Mar. 24, 2003

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 3:49 am on Mar. 24, 2003

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 8:57 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
Well I suppose yes, but I think if the other capitalist countries washed their hands of you, and bordering countries closed their borders (not you closing yours) Then dissent wouldn't get you anywhere. I still think any revolutionary attempt should have food stockpiled, and people educated quickly in basic survival techniques like water collection. (Leaflet drops.)

If commune living could be encouraged before a revolution, or transition, people could adapt better. These are only things that we need to consider when one of us gets the balls to try something, (or a re old enough to vote...this is the internet ;)) Seriously though, it is great to plan, but People don't know when, where or how, I see these as the first questions to ask.


Do you really think people will believe that some communist zealots dropping leaflets are going to suceed?


Some will believe but the majority wont.


The key is preparation.

What we need to do is have people prepped to get in their and run the major needed industries atleast in major cities.

That way we keep the majority of the population happy.

Once we get that secured we spread out to the smaller ones


I meant leaflet drops to teach about how to cope with a possibility of fending for yourself for a week. Having a survival tips book or leaflet isn't left wing propaganda, it would just be precautionary.

Yes I agree preperation is the key, that why I suggested as above.


I know what you meant

but most people would over look these because they dont think they will be necassary since they doubt the uprising will be sucess ful