Permanent Revolution

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Actually it doesn't, since nobody mentioned North Korea at all. I challenge you to find any of my posts that expresses positive sentiments about the North Korean regime.
By the way, few people would describe Juche as socialism, even less a "communist utopia".
Try harder next time.

I never said that you made any posiitve comments about the North Korean regime. Few would describe an 18th century factory as a "capitalist utopia" and yet you used that example. So I thought it would be fair to give a negative example of a communist state.

It is drivel based on the ideas of Ayn Rand, "a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists" to quote Mike Huben, not a resident or fanboi of North Korea.

I read the wikipedia article on her. Now I want to read some of her works.

 

[Urederra]

One is not supposed to feed the trolls, but sometimes it is unfortunately too hard to refrain from it.

Since I am not a troll, and all my comments were facts-based opinions, I guess that trollish statement wasn't directed to me.

I sometimes wish I had the power to put people like you in a 19th century factory (or a modern sweatshop for that matter), and see how long you would continue spouting out this sort of Randian drivel.

And I pray everyday for the Gulag days never to come back again. Quit trolling, please.

Wealth, even interest-bearing wealth in a mature capitalist system is ultimately and primarily based on exploitation of both dead and living labour and nature. Without that, the property-owning class would have no "money to risk".

I disagree. Nobody in a democracy forces you to take a particular job position. You look for a job according to your skills and tastes, and, if you have very good qualifications, then maybe you'll receive job offers from different companies that are interested in your skills. Then you can choose the offer that suits you the most. On the other hand, dictatorships, feudal states and communist countries have in common that they choose your job position for you, according to the necessities of the ruler of the country.

Also, the term bourgeoisie refer to the academics as well; like to people who led the little unimportant revolution in France. Robespierre and Danton was never "creating companies"

I agree. That is why I said that entrepreneur is a better term than bourgeoisie.

And finally, capitalism grew out from feudalism. The capitalist class pretty much grew up protected by feudal privileges.

The two sentences are contradictory. In feudalism, the nobility was protected by feudal privileges, which include the right to have serfs, slaves bonded to the feudal lord's land. Feudal lords were warlords and land-owners, with an economic system based on the countryside. The bourgueoisie, on the other hand, was a new social class that grew up in the cities, (burgo = city) mainly formed by merchants. It was the clash between the dying nobility and the fast growing bourgeoisie that precipitated the end of feudalism. So, no, the capitalist class didn't grow up protected by feudal privileges, but fighting against them.

Communism reverted the situation and the privileges of the free working class were lost, bonding the land workers to the land, and the factory workers to the factory, and submitted to the desires of the leader of the communist party.

I really hope that this little history class will be helpful for you

Try again. Socialism is not to "control the government".

You didn't understand what I said. I said that the revolution is not permanent, but finish when the communists control (or are, if you prefer) the government. Phlegmak disagrees and says that the term revolution is also used by the status-quo within a communist nation, and he is right, but then revolution changes its meaning, it is not the same as what it meant when they fighted and killed to reach the power. "War is Peace"

While being an anti-Stalinist, Orwell was a socialist and strongly influenced by Trotskism. He "came to Spain" to fight in the civil war and joined the POUM. Later he writes sympatethically about the anarcho-syndicalists in Hommage to Catalonia, one of his best books. He retained his radical convictions for the rest of his life.

I don't agree, and wiki doesn't agree either.

By his own admission, Orwell joined the POUM rather than the Communist-run International Brigades by chance — but his experiences, in particular his narrow escape from the communist suppression of the POUM in June 1937, greatly increased his sympathy for the faction and made him a life-long anti-Stalinist

It was because the Communist run International Brigades killed most of his friends that made him an anti-Stalinist, as he says in Hommage to Catalonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

You willl have your work cut out to include him in your Falange.

It is not my Falange, It was Jose Antonio's Falange, who was also killed by communists, just like many of Orwell's friends.

 

[CCA]

Are you aware that people in the Soviet Union were also free to a job "according to your skills and tastes" The only difference is that the education system operated in such a way to allow even peasants to rise to become Premier of the Soviet Union.

 

[Urederra]

Are you aware that people in the Soviet Union were also free to a job "according to your skills and tastes" The only difference is that the education system operated in such a way to allow even peasants to rise to become Premier of the Soviet Union.

Yeah, right.

Poor russians couldn't even migrate from one city to another within the USSR without asking for permission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago (it says so in the book of the Nobel prize winner, I haven't check if that is actually reflected in the wiki entry for his book). Do you believe that they were free to choose the job of their liking? Do you think that anybody would choose to be a miner if you could choose to be a museum janitor and being paid virtually the same? Nobody would choose the nasty jobs if they are not linked to other benefits, like much better wages. And where is the communism if a miner makes five times more than a museum janitor?

 

[CCA]

The way to become succesful in the Soviet Union is much like in the capitalist world:
Embrace the system.
In the former Soviet Union it involved joining the Communist Party and internalizing the values held by the ruling class.
In modern capitalist society it involves embracing the values of capitalism and internalizing the values held by the elite.

 

[Fifty]

I read the wikipedia article on her. Now I want to read some of her works.

For the record, and keeping in mind that in a lot of political/economic matters I disagree with luceafarul, he is 100% right that Ayn Rand is philosophically devoid of merit.

 

[Urederra]

The way to become succesful in the Soviet Union is much like in the capitalist world:
Embrace the system.
In the former Soviet Union it involved joining the Communist Party and internalizing the values held by the ruling class.
In modern capitalist society it involves embracing the values of capitalism and internalizing the values held by the elite.

Nope, In a capitalist society the way to become successful is by being good at your job. If you are good at your job, you get promoted, if you are not, then bye-bye. You can embrace the values of capitalism but if perform poorly at your tasks you are not going to success. I don't think anybody believes that you can keep your job in law firm by saying "but sir, Are you going to fire me just because I lost all my cases? Please don't. I embrace the values of capitalism." Nope, if you perform badly, bye-bye, no matter your ideology.


EDIT: Have you guys checked the list of the richest people? seven out of the top ten have self made fortunes. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_all_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=15000 They are not rich because their ancestors were noble. OMG. Amancio ortega is number 8 !!!!

I agree with your recipe of success in the former Soviet Union, you had to join the Communist party to reach certain positions. And if you were a dissident, you were sent straight to the Gulag, no matter how skillful you were.

 

[CCA]

Nope, In a capitalist society the way to become successful is by being good at your job. If you are good at your job, you get promoted, if you are not, then bye-bye. You can embrace the values of capitalism but if perform poorly at your tasks you are not going to success. I don't think anybody believes that you can keep your job in law firm by saying "but sir, Are you going to fire me just because I lost all my cases? Please don't. I embrace the values of capitalism." Nope, if you perform badly, bye-bye, no matter your ideology.

I agree with your recipe of success in the former Soviet Union, you had to join the Communist party to reach certain positions. And if you were a dissident, you were sent straight to the Gulag, no matter how skillful you were.

Are you saying that organizational competence, hard work and intelligence wasn't valued in the Soviet Union?

 

[JoeM]

Permanent revolution is the theory that the socialist revolution must be constant to prevent the creation of degenerate worker's state(USSR).

In the USSR the ruling class-the Tsars, Aristorcrats and the Capitalists were thrown out, only to be replaced by a new ruling class of commisars and the "Communist" Party

A permanent system of replacing the ruling classes in order to prevent stratification into social classes and statism so that the state can "wither away" is to be established. This may involve the devolution of power into smaller and smaller pieces until the individual, not capital is in charge of his/her destiny.

I think this is the winning response Cheers.


Nice to see clear division of opinions in other, very informative, responses too, but I feel that most comments on the thread were tainted by interpretation of the effects of Permanent Revolution rather than what it is/is meant to be.


Interesting also to see the thought process that simultaneously describes it as a means of reinforcing the ruling class as well.

Very interesting.


Ta.

 

[Urederra]

Are you saying that organizational competence, hard work and intelligence wasn't valued in the Soviet Union?

Nope, I am saying that in the Soviet Union political values were above competence and intelligence, whereas in a capitalist country political values are below, mainly because the employer in the USSR was the communist party, and in a capitalist country the employer is a guy/gal who wants competent people so he/she can make more money.

And USSR hard work is an oxymoron. The system collapsed because, at the end, the workers pretended to work and the government pretended to pay them.