Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Fresh Batch of Questions

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2012, 23:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Apr 2012, 22:32
I would like ask you how on earth could an entire class could have a single thought simultaneously, of over throwing the capitalists? You need some form of organisation at the least. It is a nice thought 'Communism is self-organization' but an impractical one. Without a party you have no socialism which is skipping parts out, which isn't beneficial to anyone and will then leave you at square one.
“It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.“-Che Geuvara
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 23 Apr 2012, 23:21
Quote:
I would like ask you how on earth could an entire class could have a single thought simultaneously, of over throwing the capitalists?


Simultaneously...? I'm not talking about the rapture. Of course a social movement does not occur at all places simultaneously. Revolutions usually spread across countries over several weeks.

Quote:
You need some form of organisation at the least.


I never denied that...

Quote:
It is a nice thought 'Communism is self-organization' but an impractical one.


And why?

Quote:
Without a party you have no socialism which is skipping parts out, which isn't beneficial to anyone and will then leave you at square one.


The proletarian revolution abolishes the state. Socialism is a Leninist deviation.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2012, 23:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 24 Apr 2012, 19:10
Well after a proletarian revolution what happens then? You just immediatly abolish the state? That sounds a lot like anarchism, without gradual withering away of the state wouldn't you get complete anarchy? (pardon the pun)
Quote:
And why?

Because you can't expect that everyone will get on fine and dandy if there was suddenly no state, in my opinion you need socialism to keep order and to purge or exile class enemies and to gradualy wither away the state. If you just skiped this part wouldn't there be chunks of the population who want the state back and will try for an armed revolution to bring it back?
Also how would a stateless sociaty work if there is no law and order, how would you get punished for lets say a murder or domestic violence?
“It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.“-Che Geuvara
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 24 Apr 2012, 19:32
Quote:
Well after a proletarian revolution what happens then?


Communism.

Quote:
That sounds a lot like anarchism, without gradual withering away of the state wouldn't you get complete anarchy?


Communist society and anarchy are the same thing.

Quote:
Because you can't expect that everyone will get on fine and dandy if there was suddenly no state, in my opinion you need socialism to keep order and to purge or exile class enemies and to gradualy wither away the state. If you just skiped this part wouldn't there be chunks of the population who want the state back and will try for an armed revolution to bring it back?


Why would anyone want the state back unless they are bourgeois? I mean we do have the dictatorship of the proletariat to exterminate these people. Also in order for a revolution to succeed, of course the workers must be organized. The revolutionary organization of workers is the organization of communist society. A workers' council that exists before the revolution will continue to exist afterwards, and of course there will be all kinds of institutions such as workers' militias to fight our enemies.

Quote:
Also how would a stateless sociaty work if there is no law and order, how would you get punished for lets say a murder or domestic violence?


Law, order and punishment are really bad things.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2012, 23:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 24 Apr 2012, 21:56
Quote:
Law, order and punishment are really bad things.

I'm not sure what you mean, explain. If you do something wrong you deserve to be punished, i'm not sure what you are trying to say.
“It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.“-Che Geuvara
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Apr 2012, 22:05
Quote:
Precisely! But the proletariat organizing itself is entirely different from a party that tries to organize the proletariat. A party that comes from outside the proletariat is not proletarian for this very reason. The proletariat organizing itself usually takes the form of soviets (in industrial capitalism) or social rebel gangs ("Robin Hood" like groups that are very common in poorer parts of the world). But any organization that comes out of the proletariat (and is non-hierarchical and collective) can be revolutionary.

Ok then.
What are the historical examples for revolutionary organizations that "came out of the proletariat" and actually managed to achieve something?

Quote:
An Anarchist organization doesn't try to persuade the proletariat to follow it. That's the difference. Anarchists don't pretend to lead anybody.

The CNT/FAI in Spain ( probably the only anarchist organization that actually had some significant influence with the workers) didn't try to persuade the proletariat to follow it? Have you seen some of their posters and other propaganda from the 30s?

Quote:
Everything for everybody.

I'm not so sure about this. Trade Unions are famous for being "selfish".
Of course this "trade union consciousness" is not realy class consciousness but still...

Quote:
That's the biggest and most awesome one. But spontaneous formation of soviets or social rebel gangs happens all the time.

Could you explain how did the Leninists betray 1968? I couldn't really find proof for that in the Wiki-article.
Soviet cogitations: 53
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2012, 02:34
Pioneer
Post 25 Apr 2012, 11:55
Quote:
...A party that comes from outside the proletariat is not proletarian for this very reason.


Again, I'd have to side with some of the other posters here and argue that without a communist party, there can be little effective organization.

Look at the Filipino and Indian Maoist communist parties. They've organized an entire army, spread out on a national level, and possess some form of government in areas under their control.

Could a disorganized, spontaneous proletarian mass do this? I agree that a communist party can be proletarian, as long as it seeks to organize the proletarian masses into a cohesive group dedicated to achieving the proletariat's revolutionary goals.

Although I do not agree with its aftermath(which is debatable), I'd have to agree that the October Insurrection was a genuine representation of proletarian will.

Again, could a disorganized group of proletarians without a plan or even ideological consciousness have accomplished such a feat?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 111
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2011, 06:02
Pioneer
Post 26 Apr 2012, 03:31
Order in the court! I'm fine with this conversation here, but if you're going to post, try to at least include one answer to one of my questions, or elaborate on a previous answer.
Here's a new one actually: what are your thoughts on the Ukrainian Free Territory and its fate?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2870
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 Apr 2012, 05:48
By asking about the Ukrainian Free Territory, you are really asking a question that is being answered in the above discussion going on; that is, the validity of the vanguard party as a proponent of proletarian revolution, which Lenin promoted at the time.
As for personal opinion, maybe it's my Leninist leanings, but particularly when analyzing Russia, which was then an underdeveloped nation, I see the vanguard party as key to giving the revolution some sorely needed direction during the bloody civil war, so I see Makhnov's experiment in the Ukrainian Free Territory, while noble, to be inferior to the Bolshevik movement that overshadowed it.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
Soviet cogitations: 53
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jan 2012, 02:34
Pioneer
Post 26 Apr 2012, 21:12
Quote:
what are your thoughts on the Ukrainian Free Territory and its fate?


Although I somewhat agree with the anarchist struggle in the Ukraine, I find myself wondering how effective it really was when fighting against the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks had by the 1920's turned themselves into a highly centralized, militarized organization, ruthless in its intent to hold onto the territory under its control.

Furthermore, unlike the anarchist army of the Ukraine, the Red Army was highly centralized and disciplined, and had in its ranks former Tsarist officers.

I'd have to agree that the anarchists' struggle was a doomed struggle, but only because the odds were in favor of the Bolsheviks, and not because they lacked a vanguard party.


As for my earlier point on the vanguard party, I don't think it is exclusive to Russia or other backwards nations with a low proletarian population.

Furthermore, a party can be democratized, and the Bolshevik party had some inkling of democracy from within by the time of the 1917 Russian Revolution, not to mention democratic centralism.

The biggest problem with the Bolshevik party was its failure to prevent a rising bureaucracy that eventually usurped soviet power. With the rise of the Stalinist system, many if not most communist struggles of the 20th century bore the mark of single-party rule.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.