First of all: there's an enormous difference between the question whether socialist revolution is possible and whether socialist revolution is on the (immediate) agenda. Don't mix things up.
Results 41 to 45 of 45
Really? So then your assuming a market economy could have so swiftly transferred all war production efforts east of the Ural mountains where the German invaders could not bomb? Or the that the scorched Earth tactics (not unique to socialism, this was even done against French invaders in the early 19th century) left the German military with nothing to reap (not to mention the intense resistance that the Soviet population put up where ever the Wehrmacht reared its fascist head)? Or how about the simple fact that Soviet war production out paced Germany despite the loss of the extremely valuable western land, resources, infrastructure, and of course lives? What about the experiences gained by the Soviet military after defeating the initial invasion Entente and Axis forces during the 1918-23 period?
You can't simply attribute the result of the most brutal and destructive conflict in human history to "a really cold winter". Surely it played a part in the strategic operations of the Soviet forces as well as the misfortune for the Germans--their tank tracks froze and cracked to pieces--Wehrmacht soldiers could not stay warm in their un-suitable uniforms. Yet the fascists were able to capture something like 90 percent of Stalingrad, Leningrad was under constant siege, and the brunt of the invasion forces were trying to capture Moscow. It wasn't merely snow and bitter cold that stopped them.
Weather played a part, but the victory of the Soviet Union defeating one of the largest invasion forces in history had a lot to do with socialism, planned economics, historical circumstance and experience, and least but not last heroic resistance and sacrifice.
Stop talking out of your ass.
First of all: there's an enormous difference between the question whether socialist revolution is possible and whether socialist revolution is on the (immediate) agenda. Don't mix things up.
“Where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards, where he believes in authority, in those set over him, the main thing is to teach him to walk by himself.” - Marx
"It is illogical and incorrect to reduce everything to the economic [socialist] revolution, for the question is: how to eliminate [political] oppression? It cannot be eliminated without an economic revolution... But to limit ourselves to this is to lapse into absurd and wretched ... Economism." - Lenin
"[During a revolution, bourgeois democratic] demands [of the working class] ... push so hard on the outer limits of capital's rule that they appear likewise as forms of transition to a proletarian dictatorship." - Luxemburg
“Well, then go forward, Tower of Bebel! [August] Bebel is one of the most brilliant representatives of scientific international socialism. His writings, speeches and works make up a great tower, a strong arsenal, from which the working class should take their weapons. We cannot recommend it enough… And if the [International] deserves to be named Tower of Bebel... well, then we are lucky to have such a Tower of Bebel with us.” - Vooruit
Rakunin is absolutely correct. Obviously a socialist revolution is possible, as all things are possible. The question of whether or not it is one the immediate agenda is perhaps what the OP was asking?
Personally, I do not think it is on the immediate agenda as I do not believe capitalism has run its course. This does not mean that it is pointless or fruitless to strive for such a cause, but it does mean that for all our striving, the material conditions of the world will determine one way or another in the end.
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
Comrade August is right. A Revolution is possible. Of course in a way everything is possible. But is a Revolution probable in the near future? No. In the far future? Uncertain at best.
Chances of you a winning million dollars in the lottery? Something similar.
The difference between the lottery and the Revolution are the same. The lottery cost a dollar--for the money, I'd bet on the Revolution.
I am not speaking of betting on a future outcome of anything nor do I wish to convey the notion that the revolution is in some way a matter of 'chance.' I do not believe in chance, or luck, or any other childish explanation for why things happen.
What I am speaking of is the idealism present in thinking the revolution is 'just around the bend.' The revolution is neither temporal nor spacial as it is not a single event. It is often conceived of as a convergence of huge material structures which requires the development of capitalism to the point where relative deprivation is worldwide and polarization undeniable. Yet all attempts to locate this event will differ according to perspective. 'When it started, where, how,' etc... are all lights shining upon the same play.
The reality is that the revolution has no beginning and no end as it is a constant human process - it is a play in which we are all actors, set constructors, light operators, musicians, and audience; together we are all the director.
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
