|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
 Posted - 04/01/2002 : 02:51:13 [Permalink]
|
"NottyImp> I still want to know why you think that Stalin was an inevitable consequence of Lenin." (Omega)
My argument here would be that by 1923 (and perhaps much earlier) the Soviet state had become massively centralised, and was effectively run by a small clique (The Central Committee) dominated by one man (Lenin). In such circumstances, it was not hard for another "strong man" (Stalin) to take over and create the Soviet Union as we came to know it. Many, many people (including some in the Bolshevik party, and many more outside of it) argued at the time that centralising power in this way was dangerous, and that it should be given back to the Worker's Soviets and similar grass-roots organisations to avoid outright dictatorship by a small minority/one man (as opposed to the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which was a much misunderstood but very different thing).
These people were marginalised, locked up, or executed. Lenin (and Trotsky) were instrumental in this process. It would seem to me in the light of how things actually turned out after Lenin's death that they had a very persussive argument and should have been listened to.
"Well, suppose we stick an interactive vote-o-matic TV in every household in America. How do we ensure that every eligible member of the household actually votes and not the 8-year-old pushing the pretty buttons on the screen three or four times? I simply do not see the necessary technology available for quite some time." (PhDreamer)
I disagree. Pin numbers would easily protect the voting mechanism. We easily have the technology (in the West) to implement this in any home that has a telephone. Also, no-one said everyone eligible *has* to vote. You would have the right to, and hopefully a fully educated population would see the attractions of being involved in and directly affecting decisions about their lives, but you could still choose not to vote. The only proviso being that collective decisions would be binding on the community (however large) involved. And before the griping starts about individual freedoms, you're already bound by decisions taken in the current political set-up.
"My only point in bringing it up is that when you have a direct democracy (defined as majority rules, no more no less; nothing about how educated a populous is or any other details, we're talking general definition, not specific cases), you have a danger of tyranny of the majority." (TokyoDreamer)
I agree, but no-one to my knowledge has ever comeup with a collective decision-making process that absolutely avoids this. The best you can do is seek consensus vigorously in the first instance, and then accept a majority vote if necessary, hopefully minimising the minority as much as possible. It's effectively what we have now anyway, so we should be used to it.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2002 : 21:44:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I disagree. Pin numbers would easily protect the voting mechanism. We easily have the technology (in the West) to implement this in any home that has a telephone.
I don't use those automatic teller machines, I don't have a #. I only have one credit card which I don't use often.
When I move I don't plan to have a phone. So what ever you are talking about having an idently #, I'll be left out. I don't want to miss anything!
"If you succeed, you sell. If you "fail" you learn." |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2002 : 05:04:12 [Permalink]
|
Snake - no you wouldn't. As well as home-voting, there could be communal machines available in libraries, post-offices etc. And there's always the option of proxy-voting.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2002 : 17:07:52 [Permalink]
|
PhDreamer> Okay so you don't see the technology being here at present. But suppose such technology becomes available?
Do you think representative democracy works when you have only two presidential candidates to chose from?
NottyImp> Do you take into consideration the factors leading to the centralisation of power? The economic crisis following the war for example. Lenin himself said in 1918 that “Without the German Revolutuon we are ruined.” And the German high command gave the revolutionary government an ultimatum: If it didn't allow Germany to take over vast areas of Ukraine, then the German army would advance right into Russia. The revolutionary government had to agree and lost the bulk of its coal-resources, leading to a collapse of industrial production.
Then the French and British attcked, while some 30.000 or so Czech soldiers seized control of towns along the Trans-Siberian railway, cutting Russia in half, while Japanese forces took control with Vladivostok and British troops took Murmansk
Now we see the creation of the Red Army and the isolation of the Central Committee. So while Stalin was in a way almost unavoidable, I see the reasons for the isolation of the revolutionary government as important factors.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2002 : 20:57:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PhDreamer> Okay so you don't see the technology being here at present. But suppose such technology becomes available?
Do you think representative democracy works when you have only two presidential candidates to chose from?
Representative democracy hardly consists of just the president. Most of the stuff that affects our daily lives goes on at the state and community levels. Just because he gets the bulk of the face time on TV doesn't mean he does the bulk of the work.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 03:49:32 [Permalink]
|
"So while Stalin was in a way almost unavoidable, I see the reasons for the isolation of the revolutionary government as important factors." (Omega)
Of course, pretty much everybody wanted the revolution to fail, for reasons that are not hard to discern. The question is, was centralisation and an authoritarian (actually, almost military) regime the *only* response to that international isolation?
In retrospect, history appears "inevitable", but a period of revolution is one that holds massive potential for change and new forms of politics and organisation. The problem in Russia was that alternatives were never considered by the Bolsheviks, and were never likely to be because of their political philosophy. Even before the crisis of the early twenties reached a head, in the very early days of 1917-18, the Bolsheviks were securing the reigns of power by putting place-men in power in the worker's Soviets, and every other political arena. They did that because that was their political modus operandi. Whether or not circumstances were against them, their political instinct (derived from interpretations of Marx and Engels) was to set up a strong centralised Socialist State in order to win the revolution.
But there *were* political alternatives to this scheme. The Workers' Soviets could have become direct-democratic organs of political organisation and decision-making. A delagated (but recallable) assembly could have become the national body of rule. Even if this proved ineeficient in winning the civil war, there were alternatives here. A rare precedent in history was set by the Roman Senate, that periodically in times of crisis elected a Dictator to run the military campaign. That Dictator had a fixed term of office (6 months), although this could be extended. This is a model that could have been tried in Russia to overcome the civil-war crisis, but it was not.
The problem to me lies in a political philosophy that is prepared to set up a mono-lithic, centralised and authoritarian state in order (in the long-term) to assure freedom for all. How is that State to disappear and allow the full flowering of the worker's paradise. Well, Engels tells us, it will "wither away". Now if anyone can show me a State that has voluntarily abolished itself, or "withered away" then I will happily accept this theory. My contention is that if you build such a State as the Soviet Union did, then there will always be a tendency for that State to exist "for the good of the people". Worse still, ruthless, ambitious, powerful men are always on hand to take advantage of it.
Means *do* matter as much as ends, and in this case I don't think they can be separated. The trick is to democratise any revolution (or, for that matter, evolution) of society from the outset. If that is difficult and fraught with problems, then so be it. History shows us the alternative.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968.
Edited by - NottyImp on 04/07/2002 03:50:48 |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 09:17:11 [Permalink]
|
“Even before the crisis of the early twenties reached a head, in the very early days of 1917-18, the Bolsheviks were securing the reigns of power by putting place-men in power in the worker's Soviets, and every other political arena. They did that because that was their political modus operandi. Whether or not circumstances were against them, their political instinct (derived from interpretations of Marx and Engels) was to set up a strong centralised Socialist State in order to win the revolution.”
Their political modus operandi. See, this is where we might interpret the situation differently. You seem to know enough about Soviet history, so I don't need to get into the near feudal state of affairs in Russia at the time of the revolution.
As far as I've been able to read, the Bolsheviks viewed this as the way to spread the message of the revolution to the farthest reaches of Russia. It was not until the invasions by some 16 foreign powers, Germans taking over of Ukraine and the collapse of industrial output, that the revolutionary government started to centralise the rule. It suffered a material blockade, disease and hunger when the revolution didn't spread to even Germany. That along with a typhus epidemic lead the Bolsheviks to increase their hold on power.
There is in a sense a problem with the dictatorship of the proletariat if it becomes as centralised as it did in Russia. But the Russian revolution failed, in parts, as socialism must be world-wide and not contained to a single region. To me that is a greater problem with socialism than the abolition of the centralised government.
Especially because world-revolution seems near impossible. And the re-action by established society is scary to say the least. Such as Mussolini, who didn't gain power until after the two “red years” in Italy, and Hitler, who was given power to avoid anything remotely similar to the rising in Germany following WW I.
When I think it's important to discuss the reasons for Stalin's gain of power, it's because the civil wars, invasions, starvation, blockade and drop in industrial output are more often than not forgotten.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 09:57:39 [Permalink]
|
"There is in a sense a problem with the dictatorship of the proletariat if it becomes as centralised as it did in Russia. But the Russian revolution failed, in parts, as socialism must be world-wide and not contained to a single region. To me that is a greater problem with socialism than the abolition of the centralised government." (Omega)
Agreed, the policy of "Socialism in one country" that followed was doomed to failure, if only because the rest of the world would do their utmost to defeat it, aside from any structural problems it might have had in and of itself.
I do disagree with you about the modus operandi of the Bolsheviks. It's been a long time since I read about this period of history in detail, but I don't recall the Bolsheviks encouraging a democratisation of the revolution in their literature, or indeed in practice after 1917. This is to me a sin of ommission that is every bit as great as one of commission (the extent of which we can debate), because there were many other political organisations (anarchists among them) that *actively* sought this. Were they then wrong in your view?
The "argument of neccessity" is fallacious to me because the Bolsheviks did not accept non-authoritarian models of revolution, and hence were (in my view) bound to centralise in reaction to the crisis.
If this discussion goes much further, I'll have to dust off some well-thumbed volumes from years ago!
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 10:09:58 [Permalink]
|
NottyImp> My own knowledge on the exact reason for the centralisation of government by the Bolsheviks (aside from the outside forces) is dusty to say the least. Now, the question is, if this would've taken place without invasion, drop in industrial output etc.?
One factor is that the mass of peasants did not support the revolution because they were socialists, but because it offered the division of land. The Bolsheviks were also faced with reorganising industrial production to turn out the goods which could persuade the peasants to provide towns with food.
Any socialist revolution requires a an amount of time with centralisation, to avoid counter-revolution and reorganise society. Part of the latter involves creating local self-government. I believe this is your argument?
That the Bolsheviks made no move to de-centralise government or attempt other forms of rule?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2002 : 10:41:17 [Permalink]
|
"That the Bolsheviks made no move to de-centralise government or attempt other forms of rule?" (Omega)
Yes, in part. But it's not just that they didn't, but also that they were never likely to. I'm also not sure I agree that an initial centralisation is necessary. Why couldn't an assembly of workers' delegates peform the function of governance, whilst avoiding the dangers of an unaccountable Central Committee? Or at the very least, should not such a committee be recallable after a fixed term? As far as I recall, there were no safe-guards provided by the Bolsheviks to avoid a catastrophic centralisation of power.
My problem is as I stated it earlier. Even in an ideal situation, is a strong state really likely to "wither away"? And if it isn't, surely this is all the more reason to avoid it in a non-ideal situation?
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968.
Edited by - NottyImp on 04/07/2002 10:47:22 |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2002 : 18:33:37 [Permalink]
|
NottyImp> I suppose the question is, that if Russia had been more industrialised, at the time of the revolution, would a de-centralised form of government have been started? Russia was extremely backwards except in the few large industrial cities, the rest was almost as if taken out of the middle-ages.
I'd have to locate my books on the subject, but I think that was one of the reasons the Bolsheviks held onto power. Socialism as a political ideology was almost alien to a vast number of Russians, who wanted bread before politics. Once can only speculate what would've happened in Germany, if the party-leaders hadn't cancelled the German Revolution.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2002 : 07:32:40 [Permalink]
|
Omega, you make some good points, and certainly Russia was a very "backward" country by European standards at the time. And who could blame the peasants and poor generally for wanting bread before Socialism?
Having said that, I've never been entirely convinced by the oft-stated assumption that socialism is only possible in a highly industrialised country. The idea, I believe, derives from Marx. I don't have the theoretical back-ground, or historical knowledge to refute it, but it seems far too constraining of human social ingenuity for me. I'd be interested in your comments on this.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2002 : 18:25:23 [Permalink]
|
NottyImp> I think the “prerequisite” of industrialisation has to do with a couple of things. Workers spend time together, they work in the same factory, share the same conditions etc. It's easier to make them see the vast difference between classes, than a farmer living way out in the countryside. You also have more people in one place. It's easier to spread the word and educate a lot of people in the principles of working-class ideals. At least I think that was Marx's and Engel's basics, when they argued that capitalism would lead to socialism.
I'm not blaming anyone. Least of all the hungry. It's always struck me as peculiar, when well-fed Westerners ask my third-world people don't “just” overthrow their dictator. But that's another discussion.
If I recall correctly, socialism was initially thought of as arising by itself when a country had become industrialised enough “back then”. The workers would be faced with classes, they'd interact, live in close proximity to each other etc. And to a certain point be aware of change and the possibility to take over the means of production. The factory is right there, and there are more workers than bosses.
A farmer or feudal-like state as Russia is another matter. What are the farmers supposed to take over? China was even less industrialised than Russia, and it didn't work there either.
So I'd think industrialisation is a prerequisite so to speak. High industrialisation is even better. More people close together, the “masses” are in closer contact to one another and the word spreads faster.
Workers can quickly organise a strike. It's more difficult for farmers, and since we all need bread, food-producers shouldn't go on strike. If everybody starves, what's the point?
So I think the above basically sums it up (more or less :)). If you can see a way of creating a revolution in a country without much industrialisation I'd like to hear it.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Chagur
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2002 : 16:36:23 [Permalink]
|
Just an aside from the past:
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that
the most wickedest of men will do the most
wickedest of things for the greatest good
of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes -
Take care
"Insignificant events can take on monumental proportions
when your head is full of practically nothing" - Grace Slick - |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
