HAI GUISE!!!1 Ok, so under advisement I've created a thread here. Basic jist is this - I'm feeling particularly humanitarian, so I'm going to help you people by presenting a short explanation of socialism and communism, so that you guys can criticise it properly, as from what I've seen so far, a number of your group's members have failed to grasp what socialism or communism actually are. This way, you might begin to look more like a decent debate group rather than TWC's branch of the Tea Party. In addition, use this thread to ask me any general questions about communism/socialism that you may have. ------------------------------------------ Socialism - can be defined in the abstract as "a democratically co-operative society in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the people." Practically, Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. The underlying principle is that each man contributes to society according to his ability, and is rewarded by society according to his labour (i.e, how much work he put in). Following this definition, the USSR, its satellites, Cuba, Pre-Deng China, and North Korea are/were all socialist in some shape or form. Communism can be quite easily described as "a classless, stateless society in which each man contributes to society according to his ability and receives from society rewards according to his needs." Communism is in essence a form of anarchism, in that it is stateless. Communism has never been achieved on any large scale in human history, with a few notable exceptions, those being what Marx described as primitive communism (ancient, prehistoric tribesmen, not unlike the native american indians, and Austrialian aborigines), and small historical examples like Anarchist Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. So this begs the question, why did the USSR and others call themselves communists? Well, Communists believe that with the overthrow of capitalism, that society will be replaced by a Socialist one, as described above. As Socialist society is developed (Historically, perfect socialism has never yet been constructed), it will lay the foundations of a future Communist society, and the state will begin to wither away as its functions become gradually obsolete. We Communists, view the state (that is to say, government) as, at its core simply a tool by which one class oppresses another. In capitalism, the ruling classes, capital, use the state, specifically its monopoly on the legitimate use of force, to oppress the proletariat, the workers, the masses. All the organs and tools of the state - the police, taxes, even healthcare are not in fact socialist in nature - they're wholly capitalist, as they are used to keep the population under firm control of capital. In a Socialist society on the other hand, there is only one class, the proletariat - the bourgeoisie has disappeared now, thanks to the success of the revolution. As a result, the state now has very little logical purpose, as there is no other class to oppress. It would follow, then, that it will begin to disappear and/or lose importance as its role is effectively no longer needed. You may be wondering at this point, why did not the state wither away in the Soviet Union then? Well, there are a few reasons for this: 1. Socialism was never perfected in the USSR. Only with the complete construction of a socialist society can we progress forwards. 2. The Bourgeoisie was not yet completely destroyed as a class, as the events of 1991 proved to be correct, when counter-revolutionaries took complete control of the Soviet Union. 3. Running on from point 2, the bourgeoisie and ruling classes were still very much at large outside the Soviet Union, and were engaged in protracted class warfare with the East (the Cold War). You could say, that the revolution that began in 1917 still wasn't finished even in 1989, as the ruling classes still held the dominant position in the world as a whole. The Cold War can be viewed ideologically as a continuation of the Russian civil war - it was still the Whites versus the Reds, this time on a global scale. That should sum it up so far - I've explained to you exactly what socialism and communism are and presented the theory of how the two fix together not only in the abstract but applied it to a historical context. Apologies if it seems a little incoherent, as I've got to go out in five minutes and won't have time to proof read this. Feel free to ask any questions or post any disagreements.
In a Socialist society on the other hand, there is only one class, the proletariat - the bourgeoisie has disappeared now, thanks to the success of the revolution. As a result, the state now has very little logical purpose, as there is no other class to oppress. It would follow, then, that it will begin to disappear and/or lose importance as its role is effectively no longer needed. Okay,let's imagine that you've achieved a victory and created revolutionary state,how are you going to convince all leaders of the revolution to voluntarily give up power and create real communist society? yes,you can say "we'll force them to do so using popular pressure",but what if parts of the revolutionary military forces side with those who don't want to give up their newly found power? War itself,excludes possibility of complete destruction of classes/social/rank differences as there is no effective fighting force without leader and victorius leader(s) as such is likely to gain enough popular support for grabbing power and very few can resist such temptation,how one can guarantee that it won't happen? executing/otherwise removing popular figure can only discredit a political cause and leaving them unharmed is a foundation of new class differences,since popular figures always boast more political influences than any other,common citizen of a socialist state and therefore have more support and opportunities to grab power only for themselves. 1. Socialism was never perfected in the USSR. Only with the complete construction of a socialist society can we progress forwards. And what solution do you and other socialists/communists offer to "perfect socialism"? 2. The Bourgeoisie was not yet completely destroyed as a class, as the events of 1991 proved to be correct, when counter-revolutionaries took complete control of the Soviet Union. Technically right,but on the other hand a state can't function without professionals,this was exactly why Russian revolutionaires were forced to retain many Tsar's officers(for example generals N.Rattel,V.Olderogge,M.Matiasevich;Admirals A.Shchastny,V,Altfater,etc),various scientists and most of those professionals who stayed in Russia,so it was only obvious that their influence culminated in the dissolution of the USSR,but it's also clear that without them the Reds would get defeated in the Civil war and after the war the country simply had no other option but to retain at least scientists and professionals to function properly and maintain its industrialisation program,existing industry,military and agriculture in sustainable shape,so what's your and your comrades' solution for the above mentioned,professional related problems? and finally,how can you prove that your ideas are not utopian and can be transformed into reality?
Okay,let's imagine that you've achieved a victory and created revolutionary state,how are you going to convince all leaders of the revolution to voluntarily give up power and create real communist society? yes,you can say "we'll force them to do so using popular pressure",but what if parts of the revolutionary military forces side with those who don't want to give up their newly found power? The state withers away, it doesn't just pop out of existence, with everyone involved simply dropping the reigns of power. In fact, the state probably wouldn't disappear completely in the anarchist sense - there would still be elements of government in existence. For example if you look at Anarcho-Communist Catalonia during the Spanish Civil war, there was no state, however, criminals and the like were still prosecuted and dealt with by tribunals. Communism is a stateless single world organization of post-proletarian humans who work for the fullest expression of their individual and collective interests - with particular emphasis on the word "organisation". This is not anarchy. The leaders in the case you describe, wouldn't simply drop what they're doing - their work would simply become obsolete. When the means of production are developed to the nth degree, for example, a central planning committee would become redundant. With the elimination of all counterrevolutionary elements in society, much of the state judiciary would become obsolete. Late socialism will have expanded the democratic control of the means of production to such an extent that a regulating bureaucracy ceases to be required. It's simply the way it logically follows - the state is the means of one class to oppress another. When only one class remains, the state ceases to exist. You must understand, of course, that it's very difficult for me to give an adequate picture of what communism would look like. There's no set blueprint for what a communist, or for that matter socialist society would look like. Even for me, a purely communist society like Marx alluded to is very difficult to imagine. It's like asking a Roman slave to imagine what modern capitalism would be like. I have no doubt that even if there were a revolution tomorrow, I would not see the realisation of a communist society within my lifetime. War itself,excludes possibility of complete destruction of classes/social/rank differences as there is no effective fighting force without leader and victorius leader(s) as such is likely to gain enough popular support for grabbing power and very few can resist such temptation,how one can guarantee that it won't happen? executing/otherwise removing popular figure can only discredit a political cause and leaving them unharmed is a foundation of new class differences,since popular figures always boast more political influences than any other,common citizen of a socialist state and therefore have more support and opportunities to grab power only for themselves. Classlessness refers to the complete destruction of exploiting capital. There are but two classes in this world, the Bourgeoisie, and the Proletariat, each defined by their relation to society's means of material production. This is class. Social hierarchy and class are not the same thing. Social hierarchy will still exist in Socialism, and probably in Communism too. And what solution do you and other socialists/communists offer to "perfect socialism"? Perfect Socialism is quite simply when all of society's needs are catered for. The USSR was far from achieving this. It was on the right track, but bread lines are not an example of perfect socialism, I think we can agree. In fact, bread lines weren't really an example of socialism at all - just economic mismanagement. After all, they're not unique to the former Soviet Union. Technically right,but on the other hand a state can't function without professionals,this was exactly why Russian revolutionaires were forced to retain many Tsar's officers(for example generals N.Rattel,V.Olderogge,M.Matiasevich;Admirals A.Shchastny,V,Altfater,etc),various scientists and most of those professionals who stayed in Russia,so it was only obvious that their influence culminated in the dissolution of the USSR,but it's also clear that without them the Reds would get defeated in the Civil war and after the war the country simply had no other option but to retain at least scientists and professionals to function properly and maintain its industrialisation program,existing industry,military and agriculture in sustainable shape,so what's your and your comrades' solution for the above mentioned,professional related problems? People like you describe would be countered in three ways: 1. A regular and effecient non-violent purge mechanism within the government, and the army, with punishments up to and including the revoking of party membership. When such a system was actually in place in the USSR it was quite effective in keeping careerists and other selfish individuals ill-concerned with the needs of the workers, out of the system. It ended with Brezhnev however. I'm told, though I can't be completely sure on this, that Lukashenko in Belarus has an effective "reshuffling" system with his ministers and bureaucrats which prevents corruption. 2. Democracy. Keeping fresh faces around within the government through regular elections is essential, and prevents counterrevolutionaries from retaining a permanent foothold within government. Of course, scientists wouldn't be elected, but they're not at any real risk of causing problems. Within the army, naturally generals would not be elected either, but it would be a simple affair to do what the Bolsheviks did; introduce Commissars to make sure the officer corps are kept in line, until a date when the army becomes a purely volunteer organisation like in the West today, in which disloyalty isn't much of an issue. 3. Gradual replacement. Eventually, individuals like you describe would be replaced by the next generation of educated members of society. Where possible, new graduates from technical colleges and the like would be able to move in and replace their pre-revolutionary counterparts. and finally,how can you prove that your ideas are not utopian and can be transformed into reality? Well I can't very well go about proving something which has not yet happened. Best any of us can offer you is to take our word for it, and rest assured that there is a degree of uncertainty amongst the ranks of even the most learned Marxists as to what a post-revolutionary society would look like. It's probably why Marx himself was so vague on the issue in his books.
The state withers away, it doesn't just pop out of existence, with everyone involved simply dropping the reigns of power. And what will be your effective mean to ensure that everyone surrenders power they have? what if they gain support from one part of people and rebel? With the elimination of all counterrevolutionary elements in society, much of the state judiciary would become obsolete Obviously only mean to effectively eliminate them is a large scale repression,but how are you going to do it without risking a large scale rebellion,headed by some charismatic smallholders and dissatisfied revolutionaires? You must understand, of course, that it's very difficult for me to give an adequate picture of what communism would look like. There's no set blueprint for what a communist, or for that matter socialist society would look like. Even for me, a purely communist society like Marx alluded to is very difficult to imagine. It's like asking a Roman slave to imagine what modern capitalism would be like. I have no doubt that even if there were a revolution tomorrow, I would not see the realisation of a communist society within my lifetime. Interesting... I really can't get how a thing,which can't be fully imagined can be transformed into reality and an effective ruling model. Classlessness refers to the complete destruction of exploiting capital. There are but two classes in this world, the Bourgeoisie, and the Proletariat, each defined by their relation to society's means of material production. This is class. Social hierarchy and class are not the same thing. Social hierarchy will still exist in Socialism, and probably in Communism too. but class nothing more than a sort of social hierarchy,also people can be oppressed using powers other then capital one. Perfect Socialism is quite simply when all of society's needs are catered for. The USSR was far from achieving this. It was on the right track, but bread lines are not an example of perfect socialism, I think we can agree. In fact, bread lines weren't really an example of socialism at all - just economic mismanagement. After all, they're not unique to the former Soviet Union. yes,but how can socialism work without appropriate financial support? if something happens and financial situation worsens then bread lines will come along with other characteristics of financial crisis. 1. A regular and effecient non-violent purge mechanism within the government, and the army, with punishments up to and including the revoking of party membership. When such a system was actually in place in the USSR it was quite effective in keeping careerists and other selfish individuals ill-concerned with the needs of the workers, out of the system. It ended with Brezhnev however. I'm told, though I can't be completely sure on this, that Lukashenko in Belarus has an effective "reshuffling" system with his ministers and bureaucrats which prevents corruption. you miss several points,most officers of the Imperial army who served with communists were not party members till maybe late 30s,as for "non violent purge mechanism",well,never heard of it,but its clear that most Tsar's officers in the Red army were shot or arrested in two waves,in 1931 and in 1936-39,not exactly non violent and even after that some of them still survived. 2. Democracy. Keeping fresh faces around within the government through regular elections is essential, and prevents counterrevolutionaries from retaining a permanent foothold within government. Of course, scientists wouldn't be elected, but they're not at any real risk of causing problems. Within the army, naturally generals would not be elected either, but it would be a simple affair to do what the Bolsheviks did; introduce Commissars to make sure the officer corps are kept in line, until a date when the army becomes a purely volunteer organisation like in the West today, in which disloyalty isn't much of an issue. but we must keep mind that this model can work only in a country which has no hostile neighbours and has all around good foreign relations,which,considering modern global market politics is rather unlikely,believing that foreign capitalists,with huge influences in their countries won't try to lobby their goverments into invading newly born socialist state is simply stupid and if these capitalists are really big(let's say like US oil tycoons) invasion can be really disastrous and it will be likely that invaders will exploit all weakneses,including promising riches,higher pays,bribing remnants of the old society and using propaganda among those whose families have old,more or less high class background,which,in any case will cause sizeable manpower losses and this will create necessity of conscription,at least for some time,even if an invasion is repulsed,chances that foreign powers will occupy neighboring countries for "further use" will remain and if they do,this option too will fail(or at least its second part) 3. Gradual replacement. Eventually, individuals like you describe would be replaced by the next generation of educated members of society. Where possible, new graduates from technical colleges and the like would be able to move in and replace their pre-revolutionary counterparts. and what if old professionals refuse to educate them and a country faces foreign blockade? punishing them won't be an option due lack of replacement. Well I can't very well go about proving something which has not yet happened. Best any of us can offer you is to take our word for it, and rest assured that there is a degree of uncertainty amongst the ranks of even the most learned Marxists as to what a post-revolutionary society would look like. It's probably why Marx himself was so vague on the issue in his books. anyway,at first we need a revolution,but how can we make it happen? using racial tensions or maybe religious?... with growing life standarts social class is not as important as it used to be,but yes,we,fans of political experiments can try it in Africa for example,but educating good revolutionaires for them will take forever and I doubt that they'll follow "Mzungus".
And what will be your effective mean to ensure that everyone surrenders power they have? what if they gain support from one part of people and rebel? Do workers violently rebel every time they're fired? We're talking about simply making bureaucrats redundant here, or moving their expertise elsewhere. They're not going to instigate civil war over losing their jobs, especially if there's an effective rotational system in place, preventing them from gaining an overpowering influence in their respective departments. To take an example in real life, the British civil service is very much akin to the Soviet Bureaucracy, wholly unelected, and somewhat corrupt, responsible for government and economic policy enactment and management. However, if a high ranking Mandarin is fired or his department is closed, he certainly doesn't raise up rebellion in the streets of London. Obviously only mean to effectively eliminate them is a large scale repression,but how are you going to do it without risking a large scale rebellion,headed by some charismatic smallholders and dissatisfied revolutionaires? The word "eliminate" somewhat mistakenly conveys a forceful liquidation. What I describe in the long term is their eventual and inevitable fading away in the face of greater societal pressures. I mean think about it - today in Britain there are a lot less socialists than there were 100 years ago. And that's not because the government has been going around locking them up and executing them. Some repression of counterrevolutionaries during the course of revolutionary thermidor is inevitable, and no, we cannot prevent rebellion or civil war - it will undoubtedly follow a similar course as it did in Russia. All we can do is be as prepared as possible for when the reactionaries move against us. Interesting... I really can't get how a thing,which can't be fully imagined can be transformed into reality and an effective ruling model. As I've explained, Communism is the logical follow up to Socialism - but it's very distant, and frankly, a hurdle we can overcome when we actually get there... if we get there. Right now it's far more productive to worry about building Socialism instead. but class nothing more than a sort of social hierarchy,also people can be oppressed using powers other then capital one. Class in the traditional sense, yes (i.e upper class, middle class, lower class), but members of all these classes can themselves be divided into Bourgeois and Proletarians. And of course, you are correct. As I've explained, at it's basest form, the State is a gigantic tool of oppression. yes,but how can socialism work without appropriate financial support? if something happens and financial situation worsens then bread lines will come along with other characteristics of financial crisis. Nothing works without appropriate financial support. Breadlines weren't a symptom of the government running out of money, they were a symptom of haphazard and decaying economic planning, made worse by arbitrary reforms by Gorbachev's leadership. Shortages were, after all, at their worst under his leadership. They were a rarity in the early 1960s under Khrushchev on the other hand. you miss several points,most officers of the Imperial army who served with communists were not party members till maybe late 30s,as for "non violent purge mechanism",well,never heard of it,but its clear that most Tsar's officers in the Red army were shot or arrested in two waves,in 1931 and in 1936-39,not exactly non violent and even after that some of them still survived. The army is an extension of government - members of it can be purged too, and with the help of commissars and the like, the army's obedience can be assured. As for a non-violent purge mechanism, it was actually used and implemented by Stalin in his early purges, and by Khrushchev and following Soviet leaders as well. but we must keep mind that this model can work only in a country which has no hostile neighbours and has all around good foreign relations,which,considering modern global market politics is rather unlikely,believing that foreign capitalists,with huge influences in their countries won't try to lobby their goverments into invading newly born socialist state is simply stupid and if these capitalists are really big(let's say like US oil tycoons) invasion can be really disastrous and it will be likely that invaders will exploit all weakneses,including promising riches,higher pays,bribing remnants of the old society and using propaganda among those whose families have old,more or less high class background,which,in any case will cause sizeable manpower losses and this will create necessity of conscription,at least for some time,even if an invasion is repulsed,chances that foreign powers will occupy neighboring countries for "further use" will remain and if they do,this option too will fail(or at least its second part) This is correct, see also; Entente intervention in the Russian Civil War. Only once the revolution is secure can we implement democracy properly. Democracy certainly had little place during the civil war for example, but it would have hardly gone amiss during the 1970s and 1980s, would it? and what if old professionals refuse to educate them and a country faces foreign blockade? punishing them won't be an option due lack of replacement. There will likely be enough professionals who have sided with the Reds to make do with. Failing that, we can do what a lot of Soviet engineers did during the civil war - self educate. Khrushchev himself was a self-educated technician. He and others used the existing library at the local technical college to gain a rudimentary understanding of how to operate factory machinery without the owners, who had by now fled. anyway,at first we need a revolution,but how can we make it happen? using racial tensions or maybe religious? Never. We're not fascists. ... with growing life standarts social class is not as important as it used to be,but yes,we,fans of political experiments can try it in Africa for example,but educating good revolutionaires for them will take forever and I doubt that they'll follow "Mzungus". In the first world, at the moment, capitalism is chugging along quite nicely, at least, on the surface. There are two things that allow people in the first world to live as comfortably as they do: 1. A vast credit economy. 2. Exploitation of third world resources and labour. Things are going to change though if we continue this way. All we need is our next wall street crash, and believe me, it's on its way. IOf course in the third world it's a very different story - socialist and communist movements are all over the place, and gaining influence too - I mean you've seen Chavez in Venezuela, FARC in Colombia, Ortega in Nicaragua, the Maoists in India. Communism is far from dead, and I believe that its greatest century is yet to come.
Do workers violently rebel every time they're fired? We're talking about simply making bureaucrats redundant here, or moving their expertise elsewhere. They're not going to instigate civil war over losing their jobs, especially if there's an effective rotational system in place, preventing them from gaining an overpowering influence in their respective departments. To take an example in real life, the British civil service is very much akin to the Soviet Bureaucracy, wholly unelected, and somewhat corrupt, responsible for government and economic policy enactment and management. However, if a high ranking Mandarin is fired or his department is closed, he certainly doesn't raise up rebellion in the streets of London. And what if typical power struggle from 20s USSR ensures? The word "eliminate" somewhat mistakenly conveys a forceful liquidation. What I describe in the long term is their eventual and inevitable fading away in the face of greater societal pressures. I mean think about it - today in Britain there are a lot less socialists than there were 100 years ago. And that's not because the government has been going around locking them up and executing them. Unlikely,it's impossible to make everybody think in same way,USSR is a clear example of this,even large scale repressions were unable to liquidate counter revolutionary ideas,so after Stalin died and goverment became less controlling dissidents became more and more numerous and what happened in the end we know very well,thing,you are talking about can be achieved for several years,with great terror and repressions or using propaganda methods,never seen before,but I doubt that they will work more than let's say 20-25 years. Some repression of counterrevolutionaries during the course of revolutionary thermidor is inevitable, and no, we cannot prevent rebellion or civil war - it will undoubtedly follow a similar course as it did in Russia. All we can do is be as prepared as possible for when the reactionaries move against us. and most revolutions in smaller countries are doomed from the beginning,since they simply can't repel invasions from large countries,especially if civil war like situation is already present,therefore such revolution is a luxury,reserved only for the countries like UK or France. As I've explained, Communism is the logical follow up to Socialism - but it's very distant, and frankly, a hurdle we can overcome when we actually get there... if we get there. Right now it's far more productive to worry about building Socialism instead. And how to build socialism without political power and popular support? to construct "perfect socialism" cabinet and parliament majorities are not enough,it needs a fully socialist goverment which enjoys popular support and considering modern,diverse political spectrum its unachieveable via peaceful means and there is no guarantee that an attempt of violent revolution won't be crushed by military,yes,revolutionaires can gain support of the military,but this seems almost impossible in modern west,unless something happens(for example: outbreak of a large scale war and I mean a serious war,which will affect living standarts,civil society,etc or sudden and serious decrease of living standarts),also with modern,hedonist society it's unlikely that people will give up their luxuries for something rather utopian and will join the revolution,especially in a hedonistic society,like the West. Class in the traditional sense, yes (i.e upper class, middle class, lower class), but members of all these classes can themselves be divided into Bourgeois and Proletarians. And of course, you are correct. As I've explained, at it's basest form, the State is a gigantic tool of oppression. On the other hand non existence of the state will eventually cause failure and a revolution will end in the same way it started. Nothing works without appropriate financial support. Breadlines weren't a symptom of the government running out of money, they were a symptom of haphazard and decaying economic planning, made worse by arbitrary reforms by Gorbachev's leadership. Shortages were, after all, at their worst under his leadership. They were a rarity in the early 1960s under Khrushchev on the other hand. And how to create necessary finances if a revolutionary states is under international blockade and it has recently won a bloody civil war which seriously damaged existing factories,farms,ports,etc? Never. We're not fascists. I know and this is exactly why I can't think a way which might serve as a revolutionary cause in the modern western countries,only ideological propaganda in the media isn't enough as most people simply don't listen or read it. The army is an extension of government - members of it can be purged too, and with the help of commissars and the like, the army's obedience can be assured. As for a non-violent purge mechanism, it was actually used and implemented by Stalin in his early purges, and by Khrushchev and following Soviet leaders as well. We all know about violent purge mechanism used by Stalin,but a non violent one? I'd like to read something about it. Only once the revolution is secure can we implement democracy properly. Democracy certainly had little place during the civil war for example, but it would have hardly gone amiss during the 1970s and 1980s, would it? And what if after implementing democracy people decide to restore pre revolutionary order? in my opinion communism and modern concept of democracy can't co-exist peacefully. There will likely be enough professionals who have sided with the Reds to make do with. Failing that, we can do what a lot of Soviet engineers did during the civil war - self educate. Khrushchev himself was a self-educated technician. He and others used the existing library at the local technical college to gain a rudimentary understanding of how to operate factory machinery without the owners, who had by now fled. Yeah,but in this case,fact that there were necessary literature was a pure luck and a serious revolution should be depended on something more reliable than luck. In the first world, at the moment, capitalism is chugging along quite nicely, at least, on the surface. There are two things that allow people in the first world to live as comfortably as they do: 1. A vast credit economy. 2. Exploitation of third world resources and labour. Exactly,but I doubt it will change unless something seriously revolutionary happens in third world and this seems rather unlikely... there are very few people who have necessary education to create a revolutionary movement and even less who can properly understand revolutionary ideas from the ideologists and political leaders,so,without educating third worlders outcome of a revolution will always be like let's say Derg. All we need is our next wall street crash, and believe me, it's on its way. IOf course in the third world it's a very different story - socialist and communist movements are all over the place, and gaining influence too - I mean you've seen Chavez in Venezuela, FARC in Colombia, Ortega in Nicaragua, the Maoists in India. Communism is far from dead, and I believe that its greatest century is yet to come. Yeah,but we must keep in mind that most of above mentioned movements/leaders presently have no alternative to Chinese/Soviet versions of "socialism",which,according to your own words is far from perfect.
And what if typical power struggle from 20s USSR ensures? Aside from the fact that I'd like to think in the event of such a power struggle we might learn from history (i.e Stalin), there should be constitutional barriers in place to prevent the seizure of dictatorial powers by a single or group of individuals. Unlikely,it's impossible to make everybody think in same way,USSR is a clear example of this,even large scale repressions were unable to liquidate counter revolutionary ideas,so after Stalin died and goverment became less controlling dissidents became more and more numerous and what happened in the end we know very well,thing,you are talking about can be achieved for several years,with great terror and repressions or using propaganda methods,never seen before,but I doubt that they will work more than let's say 20-25 years. Propaganda is fine in my book - we see it every day in Western society after all. However I certainly think that socialism can prevail without mass repression. If things are going well, and people can clearly see they are better off for the revolution having succeeded, then there should be no need to repress the populace. Internal repression within the party too should never escalate to the level that was present under Stalin. Stalin managed to destroy the internal debate and discussion that made Lenin's government model such a successful one. Characteristically, Stalin is guilty of using the proverbial stick with his people, whereas I would rather use the carrot. and most revolutions in smaller countries are doomed from the beginning,since they simply can't repel invasions from large countries,especially if civil war like situation is already present,therefore such revolution is a luxury,reserved only for the countries like UK or France. This is true. Though interestingly it worked for Cuba and Vietnam quite well. In any case, revolution in a single country alone may be doomed to failure - it may require support from abroad, which is part and parcel of communism's internationalism. For example, one of the reasons why outside support for the Whites in the Russian civil war was so feeble is because governments like Britain and France faced anger from their own workers who supported the Bolsheviks. Famously, British dock workers refused to load ships of armaments that were to be sent to Poland to fight the Red Army, because they supported the Red cause. It's this level of foreign support that a revolution will need to succeed. And how to build socialism without political power and popular support? to construct "perfect socialism" cabinet and parliament majorities are not enough,it needs a fully socialist goverment which enjoys popular support and considering modern,diverse political spectrum its unachieveable via peaceful means and there is no guarantee that an attempt of violent revolution won't be crushed by military,yes,revolutionaires can gain support of the military,but this seems almost impossible in modern west,unless something happens(for example: outbreak of a large scale war and I mean a serious war,which will affect living standarts,civil society,etc or sudden and serious decrease of living standarts),also with modern,hedonist society it's unlikely that people will give up their luxuries for something rather utopian and will join the revolution,especially in a hedonistic society,like the West. All of what you say is basically true, yeah. Revolutions generally only happen when the population has very little to lose. On the other hand non existence of the state will eventually cause failure and a revolution will end in the same way it started. Why? And how to create necessary finances if a revolutionary states is under international blockade and it has recently won a bloody civil war which seriously damaged existing factories,farms,ports,etc? If we knew the answer to that question, Cuba would be a lot more prosperous than it is today. We all know about violent purge mechanism used by Stalin,but a non violent one? I'd like to read something about it. "In itself, the term was innocent enough: within 1921–1933 in the Soviet Union, for example, some 800,000 people were purged or left the Party, but suffered no worse fate. But from 1936 onwards, during the Great Purge, the term changed its meaning, because being expelled from the Party came to mean almost certain arrest, imprisonment or even execution." Taken from wiki. Purges were non-violent before the Great Purge. And they were non-violent after de-Stalinisation too. And what if after implementing democracy people decide to restore pre revolutionary order? in my opinion communism and modern concept of democracy can't co-exist peacefully. Communism and liberal democracy can't co-exist, no, but liberal democracy =/= democracy. Yeah,but in this case,fact that there were necessary literature was a pure luck and a serious revolution should be depended on something more reliable than luck. In your opinion the Russian revolution was not a "serious revolution" then? Besides, it would be a lot easier these days with resources like the internet at our disposal, combined with much higher standards of education than were present in revolutionary Russia. Exactly,but I doubt it will change unless something seriously revolutionary happens in third world and this seems rather unlikely... there are very few people who have necessary education to create a revolutionary movement and even less who can properly understand revolutionary ideas from the ideologists and political leaders,so,without educating third worlders outcome of a revolution will always be like let's say Derg. Tell it to the Indian Maoists. Their "Red Corridor" is coming along quite nicely. Yeah,but we must keep in mind that most of above mentioned movements/leaders presently have no alternative to Chinese/Soviet versions of "socialism",which,according to your own words is far from perfect. Well, not really. Chinese and Soviet socialism weren't finished products though, were they? They were both a work in progress, so naturally they weren't perfect. Besides, of all those mentioned, Chavez and Ortega aren't advocates of soviet communism, the Maoists in India are followers of Maoist doctrine, not of the Chinese socio-economic system, and FARC are probably closer to Cuban communism than Soviet communism, which is a world of difference in itself.
Aside from the fact that I'd like to think in the event of such a power struggle we might learn from history (i.e Stalin), there should be constitutional barriers in place to prevent the seizure of dictatorial powers by a single or group of individuals. One thing,during the height of Russian civil war there was no time for perfecting 1918 constitution,which needed much time,which revolutionary goverment lacked,so I can safely say that perfecting constitution in the way which leaves no loopholes either demands too much pre revolutionary work or deathlike silence,both in the revolutionary country and outside it,which seems rather impossible. However I certainly think that socialism can prevail without mass repression. If things are going well, and people can clearly see they are better off for the revolution having succeeded, then there should be no need to repress the populace. Internal repression within the party too should never escalate to the level that was present under Stalin. Stalin managed to destroy the internal debate and discussion that made Lenin's government model such a successful one. Characteristically, Stalin is guilty of using the proverbial stick with his people, whereas I would rather use the carrot. I'd rather not to call Lenin's model "successful",especially with its "NEP",which was nothing but neo capitalism under the guise of communism and large scale peasant rebellions which further harmed reputation of the Bolshevik goverment as the only proletarian,workers' and peasants' goverment,clear examples of this are "Pitchfork rebellion" of 1920 or West Siberian rebellion of 1922,which was lead by dissatisfied communists. Though interestingly it worked for Cuba and Vietnam quite well. With enormous Soviet military and economic support and good leaders and having combination of good foreign support and good leaders is a matter of luck. In any case, revolution in a single country alone may be doomed to failure - it may require support from abroad, which is part and parcel of communism's internationalism. For example, one of the reasons why outside support for the Whites in the Russian civil war was so feeble is because governments like Britain and France faced anger from their own workers who supported the Bolsheviks. Famously, British dock workers refused to load ships of armaments that were to be sent to Poland to fight the Red Army, because they supported the Red cause. It's this level of foreign support that a revolution will need to succeed. But now it's different time,radical socialism is quite dead and workers no longer have power they had in 1910s and 20s and worse,if they refuse to let's say load ships with supplies,the capitalists will simply replace them with third worlders(most of whom lack education,necessary to properly understand revolutionary ideas),who will be eager to do anything which might help them to gain,for example EU citizenship or increased pay. All of what you say is basically true, yeah. Revolutions generally only happen when the population has very little to lose. So we can safely say that unless something really serious happens there will be no revolution. Why? Because some organisation is necessary to supervise let's say purge of counter revolutionaires and enforce constitution/order,etc and lack of effective state mechanisms in general,might cause Somali like situation,which is the last thing most communists want. If we knew the answer to that question, Cuba would be a lot more prosperous than it is today. Yeah,but Soviet role into saving Cuba from various threats can't be denied,also we should keep attention on the fact that capable leaders like Fidel Castro are not many. "In itself, the term was innocent enough: within 1921–1933 in the Soviet Union, for example, some 800,000 people were purged or left the Party, but suffered no worse fate. But from 1936 onwards, during the Great Purge, the term changed its meaning, because being expelled from the Party came to mean almost certain arrest, imprisonment or even execution." Yes,but usefulness of non violent purge mechanism is greatly depended on political situation,this is exactly the reason why non violent purges failed to eliminate anti Stalin opposition,even Trotsky,who was expelled from the party and later from The USSR,managed to maintain some influences and used them against Stalin,albeit mostly in intellectual way,so that he still was dangerous in 1940 and Stalin decided that only way to silence him was assassination. And they were non-violent after de-Stalinisation too. Yep,but after that point purging mechanisms no longer worked in the way they meant to work and this enable Gorbachyov and his followers to gain power. Communism and liberal democracy can't co-exist, no, but liberal democracy =/= democracy. Exactly,as communism has its own concept of democracy,drastically different from its western counterpart. In your opinion the Russian revolution was not a "serious revolution" then? Besides, it would be a lot easier these days with resources like the internet at our disposal, combined with much higher standards of education than were present in revolutionary Russia. No,I meant that existence of necessary resources and their survival from "whites",military actions and various other threats was a pure luck. Tell it to the Indian Maoists. Their "Red Corridor" is coming along quite nicely. Their success is mostly depended on poverty of the local peasants and slogans,which always attracts the poor,but if we try to check ideological education level of an average guerrila we'll see that most of them are motivated by personal gain rather than ideology. Chavez and Ortega aren't advocates of soviet communism, the Maoists in India are followers of Maoist doctrine, not of the Chinese socio-economic system, and FARC are probably closer to Cuban communism than Soviet communism, which is a world of difference in itself. In fact Ortega only changed his "suit" only after the dissolution of the USSR,before that he was a good friend and "disciple" of the Soviet Politburo,he even had a tour in the entire Soviet union and was considered to be quite pro Soviet,so that there were special "Nicaragua build up" programs in the USSR,which were promoted even in Children's magazines,as for FARC,their international reputation greatly suffers because of their ties(both supposed and real) with drug trade,which already makes possibility that in the case of revolution they'll gain foreign approval unlikely.
Sorry for the late reply, some work caught up with me, and I sort of had to turbo-write a bunch of reports. Didn't really have the motivation to write a long reply after all that was done, as you can imagine. One thing,during the height of Russian civil war there was no time for perfecting 1918 constitution,which needed much time,which revolutionary goverment lacked,so I can safely say that perfecting constitution in the way which leaves no loopholes either demands too much pre revolutionary work or deathlike silence,both in the revolutionary country and outside it,which seems rather impossible. Well, actually I think the main flaw surrounding Lenin's death was his inability to clearly select a successor. A simple electoral system, even if restricted to party members alone would have solved this problem. I'd rather not to call Lenin's model "successful",especially with its "NEP",which was nothing but neo capitalism under the guise of communism and large scale peasant rebellions which further harmed reputation of the Bolshevik goverment as the only proletarian,workers' and peasants' goverment,clear examples of this are "Pitchfork rebellion" of 1920 or West Siberian rebellion of 1922,which was lead by dissatisfied communists. I'm referring less to Lenin's socio-economic model and more to the way the core executive of government worked - his democratic centralist model which was pretty successful, in that it checked and balanced itself, and offered a broad spectrum of policy choice. With enormous Soviet military and economic support and good leaders and having combination of good foreign support and good leaders is a matter of luck. Vietnam, perhaps. Cuba, less so. Especially in the early 60s. Cuba's revolution got off the ground, and stayed on its feet in the face of the Bay of Pigs invasion largely under its own steam. But now it's different time,radical socialism is quite dead and workers no longer have power they had in 1910s and 20s and worse,if they refuse to let's say load ships with supplies,the capitalists will simply replace them with third worlders(most of whom lack education,necessary to properly understand revolutionary ideas),who will be eager to do anything which might help them to gain,for example EU citizenship or increased pay. I fail to see how firing said workers and replacing them with third-worlders would help. You'd only stir up more resentment against the establishment, and create further unemployment - and nothing is more dangerous to capitalism than widespread unemployment. So we can safely say that unless something really serious happens there will be no revolution. Correct. Because some organisation is necessary to supervise let's say purge of counter revolutionaires and enforce constitution/order,etc and lack of effective state mechanisms in general,might cause Somali like situation,which is the last thing most communists want. These problems are already dealt with by the time the transition to Communist society begins. Yeah,but Soviet role into saving Cuba from various threats can't be denied,also we should keep attention on the fact that capable leaders like Fidel Castro are not many. No, what I meant was that if we knew a way of creating wealth in spite of wholesale economic blockade, Cuba would not be as impoverished as it currently is. Soviet aid circumvented the blockade a bit, back in the day, but today that no longer exists. Yes,but usefulness of non violent purge mechanism is greatly depended on political situation,this is exactly the reason why non violent purges failed to eliminate anti Stalin opposition,even Trotsky,who was expelled from the party and later from The USSR,managed to maintain some influences and used them against Stalin,albeit mostly in intellectual way,so that he still was dangerous in 1940 and Stalin decided that only way to silence him was assassination. Yes, but we don't want to eliminate opposition like Stalin did. Opposition is good, opposition creates debate, and debate is essential for healthy democracy. There's a difference between genuine constructive leftist opposition of the likes of Trotsky and his band, and reactionary counter-revolutionary opposition like the Whites. Exactly,as communism has its own concept of democracy,drastically different from its western counterpart. Drastically improved, too. No,I meant that existence of necessary resources and their survival from "whites",military actions and various other threats was a pure luck. Well, that and the fact that plenty of intellectuals and educated members of society sided with the Red cause as well. Brain drain will happen in the revolution, we know that, and the best we can do is minimise its effects. Their success is mostly depended on poverty of the local peasants and slogans,which always attracts the poor,but if we try to check ideological education level of an average guerrila we'll see that most of them are motivated by personal gain rather than ideology. I don't think the ideological education level of the average citizen in any revolution is particularly high. That's why we have a revolutionary vanguard. In fact Ortega only changed his "suit" only after the dissolution of the USSR,before that he was a good friend and "disciple" of the Soviet Politburo,he even had a tour in the entire Soviet union and was considered to be quite pro Soviet,so that there were special "Nicaragua build up" programs in the USSR,which were promoted even in Children's magazines,as for FARC,their international reputation greatly suffers because of their ties(both supposed and real) with drug trade,which already makes possibility that in the case of revolution they'll gain foreign approval unlikely. Yeah, there's a difference between being pro-Soviet and being a soviet satellite. If the USSR were around today, Chavez would probably be pro-Soviet, but he wouldn't try to copy their system. FARC's reputation does take a big hit from their involvement with drugs, and unfortunately it gives the US a "legitimate" reason to hunt them down (not that they'd hesitate to do it otherwise, however). However there's no other conceivable way of funding the movement effectively.
Well, actually I think the main flaw surrounding Lenin's death was his inability to clearly select a successor. A simple electoral system, even if restricted to party members alone would have solved this problem. But we must keep in mind that if a strongman like Stalin emerges electoral system will become just another formality,so I don't think that only electoral system can be enough. I'm referring less to Lenin's socio-economic model and more to the way the core executive of government worked - his democratic centralist model which was pretty successful, in that it checked and balanced itself, and offered a broad spectrum of policy choice. Can't get,since you've said that in the Russian civil war democracy had no place and it's well known that after 1922 USSR was de facto ruled mostly by Stalin,Zinoviev,Kamenev and at lesser extent by Trotsky and his followers(who quickly lost most of their influence BTW),so I wonder when did Lenin manage to actually make his "democratic" model work. Vietnam, perhaps. Cuba, less so. Especially in the early 60s. Cuba's revolution got off the ground, and stayed on its feet in the face of the Bay of Pigs invasion largely under its own steam. But we should not forget that the Cubans had overhelming advantage over the invaders,who had nothing but small arms and maybe few extra equipment,but in any case nothing better than lets say mortars and air support for them mostly failed to work,either because of weather or mismanagement and after that American goverment decided to stop direct military actions against Cuba,since Bay of the Pigs invasion was not as large and exhaustive as Vietnam war, so we can't make 100% correct conclusions,only "what if..." I fail to see how firing said workers and replacing them with third-worlders would help. You'd only stir up more resentment against the establishment, and create further unemployment - and nothing is more dangerous to capitalism than widespread unemployment. Yes,but above mentioned capitalists can use different means to suppress local workers,for me widespread capitalist support of third world migration isn't because of their kind hearted nature or their sincere adherence of multiculturalism and internationalism,but because of their greed,which demands cheaper workforce and if situation demands they might use them against local workers,who decide to create something like you've mentioned above,if local workers decide to make something what doesn't please capitalists,capitalists will simply bribe some of these migrants,arm them and use to quash workers' movements and at same time their propaganda will mask it as "ethnic riot". These problems are already dealt with by the time the transition to Communist society begins. So far nobody had succeeded in this and I doubt that socialists will... after they've failed once,twice... and creating order like what you've mentioned is possible only via North Korea like Totalitarianism and even this can't guarantee 100% success,there will always be some dissent and state measures will be necessary to deal with them. No, what I meant was that if we knew a way of creating wealth in spite of wholesale economic blockade, Cuba would not be as impoverished as it currently is. Soviet aid circumvented the blockade a bit, back in the day, but today that no longer exists. But Cuba isn't under worldwide economic blockade,while yes,it has almost no economic relations with the USA it in fact enjoys quite normal economic relations with the countries like Russia or China and in fact it's not that impoverished. Yes, but we don't want to eliminate opposition like Stalin did. Opposition is good, opposition creates debate, and debate is essential for healthy democracy. There's a difference between genuine constructive leftist opposition of the likes of Trotsky and his band, and reactionary counter-revolutionary opposition like the Whites. We can remember who chaotic the situation created by different understandings of socialism during Bolshevik-SR conflict was and what happened in 20s and 30s,debates create divisions,division creates infighting,infighting creates bloodshed and in the Communist state bloodshed ends all hopes of achieving concept Communism,even for the most die-hard utopists. Drastically improved, too. "Improvement" like for example "democracy","progress","true faith" is strongly subjective concept and is prone to various remake attempts,so in the end we can't say what is actual improvement of what isn't without being biased. Well, that and the fact that plenty of intellectuals and educated members of society sided with the Red cause as well. Brain drain will happen in the revolution, we know that, and the best we can do is minimise its effects. Depends on whom do you consider to be educated or intellectual,in fact most of revolutionary leaders were not intellectuals in its classical sense,but just self educated guys with political interests,in fact very few of them were actual professors or known for their ideas outside political circles and quite often they had no real ideas about ongoing Russian situation,like Lenin for example,who adapted urban revolutionary ideas of Marxism for rural majority Russia,which certainly was more ready for SR agrarian socialism than Marxism or Stalin and his well known use of German support,which later proved to be quite useful for propaganda and lack of urban,proletarian majority quickly made it clear that in fact Bolsheviks had little support outside big cities,therefore they had no majority support,which automaticaly excludes democracy. I don't think the ideological education level of the average citizen in any revolution is particularly high. That's why we have a revolutionary vanguard. So if someone offers them better populist slogans their hearts will change their subject of adoration,therefore most revolutions are doomed for failure,unless they have enough support to "drag" their cause till the end,remember for example 1918 Germany. Yeah, there's a difference between being pro-Soviet and being a soviet satellite. If the USSR were around today, Chavez would probably be pro-Soviet, but he wouldn't try to copy their system. He is already copying of some aspects,but in general I agree. FARC's reputation does take a big hit from their involvement with drugs, and unfortunately it gives the US a "legitimate" reason to hunt them down (not that they'd hesitate to do it otherwise, however). However there's no other conceivable way of funding the movement effectively. Yes,but even if FARC achieves victory the US will simply invade and there won't be anybody to defend them from the invasion as it will have all justifiable reasons,so FARC as a revolutionary organisation with actual potential can be discarded without any hesitation.
But we must keep in mind that if a strongman like Stalin emerges electoral system will become just another formality,so I don't think that only electoral system can be enough. Well, no, since he'd still have to be popularly elected. That's like arguing Western democracy fails because fascists have managed to get elected before. Can't get,since you've said that in the Russian civil war democracy had no place and it's well known that after 1922 USSR was de facto ruled mostly by Stalin,Zinoviev,Kamenev and at lesser extent by Trotsky and his followers(who quickly lost most of their influence BTW),so I wonder when did Lenin manage to actually make his "democratic" model work. Democratic centralism in a nutshell: Imagine a dictatorship, but instead of a single dictator at the top, you have a committee of about 40 guys of differing political opinions making decisions. That's democratic centralism. At the time it was a good compromise between democracy and dictatorship. But we should not forget that the Cubans had overhelming advantage over the invaders,who had nothing but small arms and maybe few extra equipment,but in any case nothing better than lets say mortars and air support for them mostly failed to work,either because of weather or mismanagement and after that American goverment decided to stop direct military actions against Cuba,since Bay of the Pigs invasion was not as large and exhaustive as Vietnam war, so we can't make 100% correct conclusions,only "what if..." You're right really. And obviously they didn't invade afterwards because by that point the USSR had guaranteed their security. Yes,but above mentioned capitalists can use different means to suppress local workers,for me widespread capitalist support of third world migration isn't because of their kind hearted nature or their sincere adherence of multiculturalism and internationalism,but because of their greed,which demands cheaper workforce and if situation demands they might use them against local workers,who decide to create something like you've mentioned above,if local workers decide to make something what doesn't please capitalists,capitalists will simply bribe some of these migrants,arm them and use to quash workers' movements and at same time their propaganda will mask it as "ethnic riot". Action -> Reaction. Suppress the local workers and you've got a serious problem whichever way you cut it. The sort of thing you describe has historically brought about General Strikes - the sort of thing neoliberals banned because they were only a few steps away from revolution. So far nobody had succeeded in this and I doubt that socialists will... after they've failed once,twice... and creating order like what you've mentioned is possible only via North Korea like Totalitarianism and even this can't guarantee 100% success,there will always be some dissent and state measures will be necessary to deal with them. So far nobody has succeeded, because every socialist state in existence has been in a perpetual cold war with its western adversaries pretty much since its founding. The USSR, North Korea, Cuba - they've all had to deal with economic blockade, sanctions, spies and proxy wars abroad, as well as actual invasions. In short, they haven't succeeded, because the West hasn't allowed them to. But Cuba isn't under worldwide economic blockade,while yes,it has almost no economic relations with the USA it in fact enjoys quite normal economic relations with the countries like Russia or China and in fact it's not that impoverished. Well, yeah - don't let the pictures of old cars fool you... they have an excellent public transport system to make up for it. However, crucially, things like internet access and computerization of the economy, both very important for Cuba to develop, are dependent on US co-operation, which is not forthcoming. Venezuela and Cuba had a plan to give the island internet access with undersea optic cabling, but I believe the scheme fell through. The Cuban government is currently trying to get Linux installed on its existing systems, since, obviously they can't have Windows. We can remember who chaotic the situation created by different understandings of socialism during Bolshevik-SR conflict was and what happened in 20s and 30s,debates create divisions,division creates infighting,infighting creates bloodshed and in the Communist state bloodshed ends all hopes of achieving concept Communism,even for the most die-hard utopists. The Communists of today are not the Bolsheviks of old. We reject the monodominant Soviet line. Hell, in Cuba, for example, all political parties are allowed, and take part in elections to the legislature. It's a far fairer system, and one I would like to see implemented in any future socialist countries. "Improvement" like for example "democracy","progress","true faith" is strongly subjective concept and is prone to various remake attempts,so in the end we can't say what is actual improvement of what isn't without being biased. Well, since in Western democracy, the main political parties decieve, rather than serve the masses, by definition, ANY other democratic system would be an improvement. Depends on whom do you consider to be educated or intellectual,in fact most of revolutionary leaders were not intellectuals in its classical sense,but just self educated guys with political interests,in fact very few of them were actual professors or known for their ideas outside political circles and quite often they had no real ideas about ongoing Russian situation,like Lenin for example,who adapted urban revolutionary ideas of Marxism for rural majority Russia,which certainly was more ready for SR agrarian socialism than Marxism or Stalin and his well known use of German support,which later proved to be quite useful for propaganda and lack of urban,proletarian majority quickly made it clear that in fact Bolsheviks had little support outside big cities,therefore they had no majority support,which automaticaly excludes democracy. Well, actually, by the 1950s, I think the rural population represented the regimes most hard-core supporters, though it was mostly born out of the war. Furthermore, I think you're underestimating the effects of foreign opposition. The bourgeoisie is divided. In the event of a revolution there will be members of the bourgeoisie who WILL trade with us for profit, and those who won't. What we will unlikely face is complete economic isolation. Lenin wrote himself: Originally Posted by Lenin The main factor which allowed us to exist in this complex and exeptional situation is the fact that a socialist country can engage in commercial relations with capitalist countries. There are even examples I can think of where in the 1930s, British firms loaned railway engineers and other technical personnel to the Soviet Union, who payed well for their help during industrialisation. Foreign intellectuals too, often moved to the Soviet Union to teach in their new schooling system. Quite simply, offer pay, and they will come. So if someone offers them better populist slogans their hearts will change their subject of adoration,therefore most revolutions are doomed for failure,unless they have enough support to "drag" their cause till the end,remember for example 1918 Germany. The spartacists didn't fail in 1918 through lack of support, they failed because they were brutally murdered by Freikorp thugs. Yes,but even if FARC achieves victory the US will simply invade and there won't be anybody to defend them from the invasion as it will have all justifiable reasons,so FARC as a revolutionary organisation with actual potential can be discarded without any hesitation. Unless, if Chavez is still in office at this point in Venezuela, an alliance would be likely between the two countries, and in the face of this much larger conflict, I doubt the US would care to stretch their armed forces even further by attempting to take on the two countries at the same time, as well as fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is, however, a very unlikely scenario to start with. The US are banking on the Colombian government taking out FARC before they even get near taking power.
Well, no, since he'd still have to be popularly elected. That's like arguing Western democracy fails because fascists have managed to get elected before. For me western democracy is a failure,since it laid foundation to various dirty tactics,unheard before,like importing voters from other countries,emergence of political religions,transforming protestant churches into fully political tools as oppossed to earlier more or less balanced religious organisations,therefore creating really weird situation which is neither true secularism nor truly religious society and finally it greatly helped to replace nobility with capitalist oligarchy,who used their financial power to lobby their interests and after some point became real power behind the scene,while I don't consider myself as a communist and in fact I oppose it,I agree with parts of it. Democratic centralism in a nutshell: Imagine a dictatorship, but instead of a single dictator at the top, you have a committee of about 40 guys of differing political opinions making decisions. That's democratic centralism. At the time it was a good compromise between democracy and dictatorship. Well,I fail to see how people can influence these 40 or so guys,especially if the model you've described is going to be something like "democratic dictatorship",which in fact is an oxymoron,since democracy as such is defined as "a state ruled by people",so my verdict is that using word "democracy" to describe above mentioned model is demagoguery You're right really. And obviously they didn't invade afterwards because by that point the USSR had guaranteed their security. Yep,so I don't think that exaggerating the importance of the Bay of Pigs invasion is necessary,though it can't be denied that Fidel is(was) a really talented leader. Action -> Reaction. Suppress the local workers and you've got a serious problem whichever way you cut it. The sort of thing you describe has historically brought about General Strikes - the sort of thing neoliberals banned because they were only a few steps away from revolution. But modern third world migration to the West logicaly arouses strong suspicions that something like I've described is in being planned. So far nobody has succeeded, because every socialist state in existence has been in a perpetual cold war with its western adversaries pretty much since its founding. The USSR, North Korea, Cuba - they've all had to deal with economic blockade, sanctions, spies and proxy wars abroad, as well as actual invasions. In short, they haven't succeeded, because the West hasn't allowed them to. And we have no guarantees that a new one will. they have an excellent public transport system to make up for it. However, crucially, things like internet access and computerization of the economy, both very important for Cuba to develop, are dependent on US co-operation, which is not forthcoming. Venezuela and Cuba had a plan to give the island internet access with undersea optic cabling, but I believe the scheme fell through. The Cuban government is currently trying to get Linux installed on its existing systems, since, obviously they can't have Windows. I doubt that it will work,internet is full of "harmful" pages and blocking all of them is simply impossible,so it might affect Cuban political system in a negative way. The Communists of today are not the Bolsheviks of old. We reject the monodominant Soviet line. Hell, in Cuba, for example, all political parties are allowed, and take part in elections to the legislature. It's a far fairer system, and one I would like to see implemented in any future socialist countries. We shouldn't forget that in Cuba the Communist party has various constitutional privilleges and propaganda support,something which other parties lack,not exactly fair sort of concept democracy,but after all nobody demands it from them... as for communism,yes,most modern day communists are either Trotskists or Euro communists,but both of them can be understood in many ways... Well, since in Western democracy, the main political parties decieve, rather than serve the masses, by definition, ANY other democratic system would be an improvement. Yeah,but most communist parties did exactly the same. Well, actually, by the 1950s, I think the rural population represented the regimes most hard-core supporters, though it was mostly born out of the war. From personal experience(I live in a former Soviet republic) I can say that here most support(and dissent too) came from urban areas,while most rural people were mostly indifferent towards politics Furthermore, I think you're underestimating the effects of foreign opposition. The bourgeoisie is divided. In the event of a revolution there will be members of the bourgeoisie who WILL trade with us for profit, and those who won't. What we will unlikely face is complete economic isolation. Lenin wrote himself: Well,agreed,money can open many doors,inaccessible before The spartacists didn't fail in 1918 through lack of support, they failed because they were brutally murdered by Freikorp thugs. Fact remains that popular support the Spartacists had was not enough to achieve a success over the Freikorps. Unless, if Chavez is still in office at this point in Venezuela, an alliance would be likely between the two countries, and in the face of this much larger conflict, I doubt the US would care to stretch their armed forces even further by attempting to take on the two countries at the same time, as well as fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is, however, a very unlikely scenario to start with. The US are banking on the Colombian government taking out FARC before they even get near taking power. Hard to say,judging from what's happening in the US,but its possible that they'll try something with these two countris,then use CIA plants in FARC to cause them to fight against Colombia side by side with the Venezuelans,which will further damage their support in Colombia,a coup agains Chavez is also possible,but not very likely and finally,considering that Americans madly want to invade Iran,they can also invade Venezuela or Colombia if they deem it necessary as neither of them is stronger than Iran and in fact can be called a bit(or more than a bit) weaker compared to Iran.
But, in reality, communism is just a dictatorship, and socialism is about redistributing wealth. Marxism is what you said communism is. But there are no Marxists countries cause someone always wants to be in charge.
Communism absolutely requires totalitarianism and violence in order to operate, hence my opposition.
Quite! There's absolutely no way around it!
Communism is the same as marxism; Castro the communist cuban dictator just before the Cuban crisis declared himself a Marxist and Cuba was then seen as a satellite state of the USSR. Cuba was a marxist and communist country as they mean exactly the same thing.
2. The Bourgeoisie was not yet completely destroyed as a class, as the events of 1991 proved to be correct, when counter-revolutionaries took complete control of the Soviet Union. And here the big problems arises. No please don't vote me down just becouse I write in broken english. See, to achieve this, some classes of people needs to be exterminated. Same concept is basicly everywhere with any radical idea. Becouse they all grow with same way of construction. Destroying old, and building new on a ruble of the former. Nw if we would analize the ways of proces of communism establishment we can see totaly the same in Nazi germany. * Both have totalitarism (communism in it's final stage do not, but I doubt that it's possible with current people mind-set) * Both needs to get rid of "unwanted" people. * Both are globalists (I know, for someone it might sound funny, but nazi germany were globalists. Pan-germanic ideas. And also a creation of new entity - Aryan. Not german. Soviets tried - Soviet people) * Now economy is formed on diffrent basis. But both are froms of socialism. So baiscly they are same. I won't talk much about ideas becouse they do not count here at all. Why? Simple - ideas do not advocate the methods used to achieve that. Same is basicly with all radical ideas. And I haven't even touched cultural aspects, freedoms, law and such. But maybe this will be a good start.
