Ask a Red, Second Edition
- Thread starter Cheezy the Wiz
- Start date
- Status
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?
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?
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.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
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.
In what sense were the Bolsheviks "lunatics"? My impression is that Lenin and chums were too cynical by half.
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... 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.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That's glossing over a lot of intervening history.
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.
Also, could you elaborate on the claim that it "wrecked the entire system"? I haven't really encountered that one in any detail before.
Under socialism, how can a democratic workforce be educated enough to make or support sound economic decisions and company policies? Under capitalism, we have potential exploitation from the owners because of the idea that they know best how to run the business, granting them that power. If we were to flip the tables, would we not run the business less efficiently (perhaps much less)... and if we were to elect a leader, could he not lead to the same ultimate results as capitalism gives us?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
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.
On leadership: It's generally assumed that the level of re-organisation would involve more than just the introduction of an "industrial parliament", as it's sometimes been called, with the same basic structures retained. Rather, the decision-making process would begin at the bottom level, what is sometimes referred to as "factory-floor democracy", although the term is of course a bit outdated. Direct assemblies of workers constitute the ultimate arbiter, and all "higher" levels of decision making are comprised of delegates fulfilling coordinatory rather than managerial roles. (Although models which hold "workers' self-management" as the end point are generally less than robust. It is necessary that a far broader process of social reconstitution be initiated, to overcome the terms of wage-labour that would still permit a relapse into capitalism, and that may take us beyond what we are now capable of envisioning.)
On leadership: It's generally assumed that the level of re-organisation would involve more than just the introduction of an "industrial parliament", as it's sometimes been called, with the same basic structures retained. Rather, the decision-making process would begin at the bottom level, what is sometimes referred to as "factory-floor democracy", although the term is of course a bit outdated. Direct assemblies of workers constitute the ultimate arbiter, and all "higher" levels of decision making are comprised of delegates fulfilling coordinatory rather than managerial roles. (Although models which hold "workers' self-management" as the end point are generally less than robust. It is necessary that a far broader process of social reconstitution be initiated, to overcome the terms of wage-labour that would still permit a relapse into capitalism, and that may take us beyond what we are now capable of envisioning.)
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
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.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
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.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
And I think that is the point. We agree that it's a good idea to move away from it, but doing so will be difficult.
Oruc
Reactionary
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)?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
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.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
While I echo the sentiments of my comrade above, I assign somewhat greater importance to the responsibility of revolutionary individuals. Of course I do not think it should be a revolutionary coup, but I think that a core of dedicated individuals with singular vision can, should, and must serve as the guide forward, so that the efforts of the organized working masses can be most efficiently and effectively applied. It is the difference between July and October 1917.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
This is possibly more a matter of perspective than content. I certainly think that concious militants have a very important part to play in any revolutionary undertaking, I would just stress the need for political hegemony to lie immediately the democratic mass assemblies of the working class, rather than with any exclusive organisation. I'm sure we both agree that the role of the vanguard is to argue and to organise, not to direct or to order- to lead from within, rather than without, as it were- but I think that this needs to be particularly stressed against the residues of bourgeois "leadership" (in its liberal, Stalinist or even trade unionist guises) that any mass movement will encounter. (Indeed, I'm given to understand that OWS is encountering stumbling blocks of just this sort, as well as the anti-organisational fetishes that are irritatingly common on the contemporary left. But, you'll be more up to date on that than I am.)
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Is my statement nonsense based on governmental involvement, or the fact that socialism and communism try to equalize people and fail? Or just the way it came across?
Spoiler :
I will leave this as just a question, it was never intended as a debate, just the way I see things. Any answer will be taken as the way Traitorfish sees things and nothing personal. I am just curious that is all.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Socialism, as Antilogic said in that thread, is any system in which the means of production are controlled by those who work it. (The assumption is that this is in itself an organisational principle, and not just a comment on the distribution of property at a given moment, so a society of independent farmers and artisans who own their land and workplaces as private property would not be considered "socialism".)
Communism refers more narrowly to a form of organised in which property is owned not simply collectively, by communally i.e. by the whole community, and in which production and distribution occurs is organised on a non-market basis.
Neither of these imply a definite program, and while they may acquire more specific meanings in certain places, at certain times in history, or in certain programs or bodies of theory, these must be regarded as context-specific usages, and not general usages. "Generic socialism" and "generic communism" can only be defined as any program or ideology which supports the bringing about of such a society.
Communism refers more narrowly to a form of organised in which property is owned not simply collectively, by communally i.e. by the whole community, and in which production and distribution occurs is organised on a non-market basis.
Neither of these imply a definite program, and while they may acquire more specific meanings in certain places, at certain times in history, or in certain programs or bodies of theory, these must be regarded as context-specific usages, and not general usages. "Generic socialism" and "generic communism" can only be defined as any program or ideology which supports the bringing about of such a society.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Reds,
How are goods priced under your favored version of redism?
Peace out,
Fiftyson
How are goods priced under your favored version of redism?
Peace out,
Fiftyson
Quackers
The Frog
Are people from the professions - Doctors, Engineers, solicitors, etc part of the working class or middle class?
How many in the UK fall into "working class" under your definition. Same for middle class + upper class.
How many in the UK fall into "working class" under your definition. Same for middle class + upper class.
- Status
