Lone Wolf said:Well, this is kinda implied by the life expectancy dropping?
sorta. but seriously. that's not a good way of framing it.
Lone Wolf said:Well, this is kinda implied by the life expectancy dropping?
Was the communist revolution in Russia the best of all possible outcomes following the overthrow of the Tsar? If not, what would have been a better outcome? If so, why?
Hard to answer, really, without some definite alternative to compare it against. Depends on a huge array of other variables, within Russia and without. Was the Provisional Government capable of resolving political instability? What were the chances of counter-revolution? What would have changed if the German Revolution had succeeded? Nothing before or after it was set in stone. All than can really be said is that it was worth a shot.Hey,
I posed this question in another thread that asked about communism, but now I realize it might be better suited to ask it here.
Was the communist revolution in Russia the best of all possible outcomes following the overthrow of the Tsar? If not, what would have been a better outcome? If so, why?
In what sense were the Bolsheviks "lunatics"? My impression is that Lenin and chums were too cynical by half.The government that actually overthrew the Tsar wasn't that bad ideologically- it was ineffective for various reasons, not least because the peasantry was baying for blood and wanted to be given huge chunks of land right away - and so if it had stayed in power, rather than being overthrown in its turn by the frankly lunatic Bolsheviks, the whole thing might have run a bit better.
In what sense were the Bolsheviks "lunatics"? My impression is that Lenin and chums were too cynical by half.
That's glossing over a lot of intervening history.Maybe the original crew of Lenin and Trotsky et al could be described as 'misguided but decent', but once a certain Stalin ended up in charge...
Which parties do you mean? The Bolsheviks were part of a multi-party "Left Bloc" in 1917, and the centre-left also pursued a policy of land redistribution, simply a more modest one. Only the liberals really opposed redistribution, and their lack of mass support makes it hard to imagine why anyone should have given them much heed one way or the other. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion by mid-1917 that the old estates were going to be broken up, it was just a question of how and by how.the Bolsheviks' election strategy basically boiled down to 'vote for us and we'll give you land', and when other parties tried to point out how likely that was to wreck the entire system (which it did) they were just shouted down as anti-working-class.
On economic policy: In a socialist society, the market would not exist,
so it's not possible to think of "economic policy" in the same terms. Production would not be about playing the game of the market with the intent on maximising return, so the need for a caste of warlocks who understand its obscure workings would not be necessary. Technical plans would still be necessary, but their construction doesn't need to be associated with any sort of authority over others. They can be submitted to democratic processes like any other proposal.
Well, I'm sceptical of self-managed market economies as a long-term solution. Obviously they'll be unavoidable reality in any immediately realisable socialist society, but to retain commodity production, which means retaining the categories of capital and labour (however much the latter is dominant over the former), always leaves the risk of a collapse of workers' hegemony, and a return to capitalism. I think that a process of communisation must begin immediately, to head off a repeat of the counter-revolutions of Russia and Spain (the latter, it should be noted, having altogether more involvement from the CNT than the anarchists are ready to admit). But, perhaps that's academic, at this point, because none of us can be sure exactly what form this process will take, or how long it will require.I do not agree. I do not see why markets are inherently capitalistic, or why they would suddenly disappear. Even state planned economies operate with markets, they are just goverment-owned companies. I also do not see why worker-ownership of companies would mean that those companies would no longer compete. I mean, yes, we will certainly be working towards some form of "socialist competition," and I think that that'll be better for us in the long-run, but I think we can agree that it's not an absolute necessity.
The revolution is the task of the working class organised as a class-for-itself, so the task of revolutionaries is to encourage this process of organisation. (Be it through party, industrial union, or what have you, depends on the tendency to which one subscribes.) Revolution is the task of the working class, not of any enlightened minority, so it is impossible for individuals acting as mere individuals to make any movement towards revolutionary outcomes.This may have been asked, so Communism is a revolutionary ideology, in what way are you helping to start this revolution, what part do you intend to play in it and how are you preparing for it (perhaps you are already perpared)?
That is complete nonsense on every level. I can't even begin correcting it, because its basic premises are assumed with seemingly no reference to reality.
That's about right, yeah.
Then why are there no nations implementing the above forms without any government at all? Government is not needed, then abolish all forms of it and let's see what happens. We do not need any leaders guiding us, nor any laws restricting us. We can coexist as an entity.