Traitorfish
Reaction score
7,704

Profile posts Postings About

  • 'chan eil' negative form of 'tha' (to be)
    'sinn'= us (1st person plural)
    'Sassanach'= English

    Ergo, 'we're not English'
    Not only kilt-wearing Highlanders are Scots, you know… :)
    Can you convince the men manning the big gun on New Year to shoot it towards Ingerland?
    I don't know. I know that one could arrive at that conclusion through The New Industrial State. Galbraith makes the comparison between the Soviet command economy and large corporations whose former-private-owner-but-now-CEO refuses to yield decision-making power to the technostructure (corporate committee-driven decision-making apparatus), because both result in inefficiency and lack of responsiveness to consumer wants due to the sheer number of decisions and amount of data that huge numbers of specialists must digest in a modern large corporation. Which is what the Soviet economy, and every command economy, can effectively be thought of as.
    Eh let's try it out. I think anarchism sounds more interesting to people than just communism and more controversial.
    Well left-anarchism is what I had in mind but individualist anarchists(if you mean in like Thoreau fashion, unrelated to economics) would be fine. I don't think letting in anarcho-capitalists is a good idea because despite the "anarcho" prefix we really have nothing in common.
    I'm afraid I don't fully understand St. George Square or Easter 1916, or any of the other ones save for Hungary and Germany. The Hungarians simply got beaten in the Civil War because the Bolsheviks were cut off from them and they were too weak to really win. The Spartacists were put down by the "socialist" government, who unleashed the wandering soldier bands, the "Freikorps," on them without mercy.
    I place the failure of the Polish campaign firmly on the shoulders of Stalin, Budyonny, and Voroshilov. The three of them (two generals, with Stalin as the Commissar) thought the glory of taking Lvov was more important than backing up Tukhachevsky's blitz towards Warsaw. When the Poles counterattacked at the Vistula they had superior numbers (by virtue of successive retreats in the same direction) and Tukhachevsky had nothing to fall back on. The Poles chased them back to beyond the Belorussian frontier. And thus the carrying of the Revolution Westward failed.
    So while I think the Bolsheviks (and thus Lenin and Trotsky) were right, I think their situation was unique. Trots in industrial nations today (including the 4th Internationalists) don't understand their own ideology, they are simply reacting against the USSR, or today, the idea of the USSR.
    Which is one reason why I like Chavez. He is a self-acclaimed Trot. His nation is a correct application for the best parts of Trotskyism, though it still suffers from that "rebuilding a failed state" syndrome that Zimbabwe and Afghanistan suffered from, since he's obviously not going to carry the revolution and end Capital. Though he certainly has dreams of carrying the revolution to Bogota. :p

    (This was all supposed to be one post but the forum doesn't appreciate my garrulousness.)
    Only the Bolsheviks understood that post-war Russia would be a corporate dumping ground and raw material heaven for Western Europe, an Eastern European "Latin America," so to speak. The whole logic behind their revolution was to spread it to the real capitalist nations in the West, who would then turn around and help out their Russian brothers with their backwardness. But it never really got there, for a variety of reasons. I mean, neither really thought Russia should "go it alone," and its unfortunate that Stalin was the man who had to deal with that situation. I think part of that is why he gets a bad rap, though, he was the one who wound up having to clean up all the loose ends, all the problems created by the failures of the revolution: the failure to extend the revolution into Europe, the failure of the Polish war, the failure of the NEP, the failure of the early campaigns to divide the peasants against the Kulaks...
    I see Trotskyism and Leninism as attempts to adapt Marxism to something that would be of use the uniquely-situated Russian society, and later as an attempt to make the best of an exigent situation. I don't think the Mensheviks were "bad" until they went all counterrevolutionary after October, because they were the orthodox Marxists, and I can hardly blame them or European Marxists like Kautsky and Luxemburg for reacting against the Bolshevik uprising, but I think all of them failed to understand the uniqueness of the Russian situation.
    One thing I think many fail to realize is just how similar Leninism and Trotskyism ARE. The two heavily influenced each other, and after April 1917, become inexorably intertwined. The later slanders of Trotskyism by Stalin and Co. are arguments between people, not of ideologies. And where it IS of ideology, it is between Leninism-Trotskyism and Stalinism, which was his personal perversion of the former to extremely pragmatic ends. I would dare even say that there is no definition of "Stalinism" except that of a totalitarian police state ^n.
    nonononono!!!!! haven't you heard of the multiplier effect? that money spent will eventually reach those in the highlands!!!!!

    what does your profile pic say?
    Personally I prefer "Commonwealth" to a "Republic" (boring). But lets keep the Monarchy! We need those tourist monies right, hi5!

    SHEET your 21?!!!!!

    WTH YOU OLD FART!!!
    I know the song, but you'd be hard pressed to find a non-English-Major American who knows who Burns even was. One of my degrees is in English, but that's not how I know of the song (Lucefarul + my own poking around).
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Back
Top Bottom