Originally posted by Liberator
Why would I be joking?It's rather obvious. The Bolshevik revolution failed because of stress made from outside countries like Britain, France, and the United States. They pressured Russia and had military threats from all angles of the country.
And when Lenin died, they shifted into a militaristic nation because of these threats.
though, it is important to remember, it was the revolution in the first place, and the subsequent power vacuum that allowed foreign powers to exploit the people.
few real revolutions end up as anything other than tyrannys
The revolution didn't fail because of foreign exploitation. Thanks to fellows like Joseph Davies, Robert Duranty (his friendly press reports to FDR), Henry Ford (Gorky Auto Plant anyone?) and the myriad of American companies that dealt with Stalin, he was able to make his Five Year Plan happen. And even before that, Lenin had to make a strategic retreat with his NEP due to the fact that the brief attempt at true Communism failed horribly and destroyed the economy. The ironic thing was that NEP was actually working, but it was such an affront to hardline Bolsheviks and Stalin that they got rid of it in the name of the Five Year plan and Collective farming (along the murder of multitudes of "Kulaks" and the Ukrainian Holodomor.)
Communism failed from the beginning, the delusional ahistorical social experiment that it was.
Originally posted by Autokrat
The revolution didn't fail because of foreign exploitation. Thanks to fellows like Joseph Davies, Robert Duranty (his friendly press reports to FDR), Henry Ford (Gorky Auto Plant anyone?) and the myriad of American companies that dealt with Stalin, he was able to make his Five Year Plan happen. And even before that, Lenin had to make a strategic retreat with his NEP due to the fact that the brief attempt at true Communism failed horribly and destroyed the economy. The ironic thing was that NEP was actually working, but it was such an affront to hardline Bolsheviks and Stalin that they got rid of it in the name of the Five Year plan and Collective farming (along the murder of multitudes of "Kulaks" and the Ukrainian Holodomor.)Communism failed from the beginning, the delusional ahistorical social experiment that it was.
I'm pretty much ignorant of all this stuff, my point was that even if his theory were correct, a state with no functioning system of rule is far weaker in the face of foreign interference
like, basically the last thing that would ensure prosperity in Greece would be a revolution
You can't be certain. What the world needs is a worker run economy because the worker is the only one who can truly understand all of the ups and downs of it. The ones who suffer, starve, and consume are majorally in the working class.
Personal opinions aside, whats happening in Greece is a direct result of police brutality and abusive capitalism.
can you name some instances of revolutions which you believe have ultimately made life better for the people it is said to serve?
Like, do you think Cubans were better as a Soviet proxy where people were prisoned and tortured for political descent? or that Iran is better now that reactionary theocracy is forced on people? or hell, even in the American revolution, people lost a lot of the freedom that came with being governed from accross an ocean when local eliets (the founding fathers) created a local form of rule.
I agree with you that things need to change, and in Greece this is no exception. However, and unfortunatly, the nation-state has sort of enshrined itself in the position of being the only one capable of providing certain servies to the populace, the most important being civil servieces and security. When you eliminate the state, you eliminate garbage collection, power, water, and many other forms of social organization that any sense of personal security is based on.
Originally posted by inimalist
can you name some instances of revolutions which you believe have ultimately made life better for the people it is said to serve?Like, do you think Cubans were better as a Soviet proxy where people were prisoned and tortured for political descent? or that Iran is better now that reactionary theocracy is forced on people? or hell, even in the American revolution, people lost a lot of the freedom that came with being governed from accross an ocean when local eliets (the founding fathers) created a local form of rule.
I agree with you that things need to change, and in Greece this is no exception. However, and unfortunatly, the nation-state has sort of enshrined itself in the position of being the only one capable of providing certain servies to the populace, the most important being civil servieces and security. When you eliminate the state, you eliminate garbage collection, power, water, and many other forms of social organization that any sense of personal security is based on.
Now thats being unfair, I wasn't proclaiming that all revolutions have turned out for the best, and if I came across as seeming that way I apologise thats not what I was getting at.
You can't continue to look at the negative everytime something is going to happen, you have to try, try, and try again. I don't agree with you, I think if the working class organises itself as it did back in the 1800's - early 1900's, to that strength in this modern day. We will begin to see real change.
Greece is hazy, but as I said earlier, I will always stand by the worker over the politician. You can't blame these people for taking to the streets and fighting against a system that is eating them away.
A lot of revolutions would have been successful but its hard to keep it going, especially once foreign nations become involved or strong military intervention is brought in. Things need to change, and I just feel that the only way to do it is through revolution. Because you're right, the nation-state has become seemingly the only system that works and thats horribly untrue, if that were so people wouldn't be rioting in the first place.
Originally posted by Liberator
Now thats being unfair, I wasn't proclaiming that all revolutions have turned out for the best, and if I came across as seeming that way I apologise thats not what I was getting at.
I really only want you to name one revolution that you think has, in the end, been for the best for the people it was supposed to serve
Originally posted by Liberator
You can't continue to look at the negative everytime something is going to happen, you have to try, try, and try again. I don't agree with you, I think if the working class organises itself as it did back in the 1800's - early 1900's, to that strength in this modern day. We will begin to see real change.
but you can't continue to imagine that revolutions will be this mystical force for creating social change in the favor of the proletariate when 30 000 years of human history sort of tend to point otherwise.
Originally posted by Liberator
Greece is hazy, but as I said earlier, I will always stand by the worker over the politician. You can't blame these people for taking to the streets and fighting against a system that is eating them away.
yes, I tend to agree with the oppressed over the oppressor as well. I don't want to encourage tactics which I feel will ultimately lead to the oppressed being further oppressed.
Originally posted by Liberator
A lot of revolutions would have been successful but its hard to keep it going, especially once foreign nations become involved or strong military intervention is brought in.
exactly.
here is the thing. I'm an anarchist. I don't believe the state is a good thing, in theory.
However, when talking about actual policy options for government, I realize, that in the real world, few are situations are made better by dissassembling the state, though that might be what I desire ultimately.
So yes, any theory of revolution has to account for the fact that no modern state would accept a failed state at their border, the EU/UN would never recognize a revolutionary government, and that the corporate media establishment would convince all NATO nations that a binding UN security council resolution was required to contain the "terrorist" and "anti-democratic" elements
Originally posted by Liberator
Things need to change, and I just feel that the only way to do it is through revolution.
But thats the thing, radicals in the modern world need to get more creative.
lets gather some dollars and pay an add comapany to do a marketing campaign aimed at middle class 40+ers inspiring them to become more politically aware. That will do more than your revolution any day, and you get the moral high ground of not calling for the heads of otherwise innocent people with families.
Originally posted by Liberator
Because you're right, the nation-state has become seemingly the only system that works and thats horribly untrue, if that were so people wouldn't be rioting in the first place.
thats not what I mean. What I mean is that the central government in most countries provides day to day services that, once gone, people lose any sense of security. sure there are other options, but look at the French student riots. They had all the ideas and radicalism in the world, when it came to actually doing anything in terms of organizing new infrastructure or new social organization, they couldn't. By their definition, revolutions dismantle these structures.
you make a very good point. I'll have to look those French student riots, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean or at least never heard of them.
Your right too, focusing like an ad campaign at even the younger generations might be beneficial, after all they are the future. It just seems like it would be unnoticed. Whereas revolution, people take notice of that.
I've always been under the notion that action speaks louder than words, one can idly talk about change but its only going to happen through direct action. What do you make of that?
For some comic relief, someone sent me this rather funny few pictures. It's probably shopped, but in some instances I'm not so sure, either way it's rather amusing.
http://www.thisblogrules.com/2010/03/dog-that-hasnt-missed-a-single-riot-for-years.html/
Originally posted by Liberator
you make a very good point. I'll have to look those French student riots, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean or at least never heard of them.
the 60-70s were a turbulent time for all Western nations. Student movements in America sort of culminated in the Kent state shootings and the Weather Underground, Civil rights and the anti-war movement, and at least in the history classes I took, that seemed to be what was emphasized. Other nations had just as radical student and anti-war movements. Especially the french.
And one day, the french students basically took over all of the campuses and began to make demands. This was only successful (lets not pretend, who the **** cares about what students have to say?) because something like 2/3 - 3/4 of the french labour force joined them on strike.
As the protest wore on, it became clear that the students really didn't have a plan. They were all idealism and optimism, but nobody knew what to do now that the old rule had been toppled. Hell, even when the Spanish Anarchists took over .... I want to say Madrid... they had to almost immediatly reinstate a form of government in many ways similar to what there was before to even have the factories run.
I took a sociology course on resistance and revolt, and the prof there said that the Communist political leaders, themselves part of the French political establishment and with strong connections to the labour leaders, began to feel threatened by the students, who weren't necessarily communists (they didn't follow party line at least) and had the workers end the strike, essentially taking the teeth out of any student movement.
basically, the lesson is, ideas are bankrupt. forget everything else, keep the lights on and the water running. People follow whoever does that.
Originally posted by Liberator
Your right too, focusing like an ad campaign at even the younger generations might be beneficial, after all they are the future.
younger people are almost a lost cause though. They are easy to convince, largely because they don't know any better. Not that I think the ideas are dumb, just that youth with limited life experience don't know enough to really apply the ideas to their everyday life. Socialist communism sounds awesome when you are in high school, because everything is handed to you anyways, and there is a total disconnect between economic prosperity and how much you work.
As people age, they invest time and money into the mainstream system, and become defensive of anything that threatens that lifestyle, as political insecurity would.
Converting highschool and uni students is like shooting fish in a barrel, and as soon as they achieve any sort of financial clout, the power needed to change society, they will have invested so much into it that they would rather not risk losing it for ideas they were never mature enough to understand in the first place.
See, I'll talk about england and france below, but you are too hung up on massive and apparent change. We need people to even begin to question whether rampant consumerism is the way they need to go.
Think of it like this. Christman, from a sociological point of view, is basically an orgy of mass consumption, from food, to gifts, to fuel for transport of said gifts and people to their families. Imagine if we celebrated a non-consumerist christmas.
Our economy would be crippled immediatly. Everything, bar the basic necessities of life, would only be available in metropolitan city centers, entire industries would collapse.
As bad as things are, we need slow progress, its like a house of cards ya?
Originally posted by Liberator
It just seems like it would be unnoticed. Whereas revolution, people take notice of that.
look at apple. They have a computer that (all dumb arguments aside) is half as functional as a PC (maybe more "streamlined" or however they phrase "dumbed down so you can't break it with your ignorance"😉, looks a little sleek, and costs twice as much.
They design incomprehensibly akward devices that might as well be tech demos, and yet they have a following that reaches cult like status.
yet, even among users of this forum, I bet you would find people have a much more heated opinion about the new iPad than they do of the civil war in Palestine between Hamas and Fatah that happened ~3-4 years ago.
Originally posted by Liberator
I've always been under the notion that action speaks louder than words, one can idly talk about change but its only going to happen through direct action. What do you make of that?
So, you have France, and you have Britan. Both were faced with modernity in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.
France had a revolution, changed huge aspects of its society, descended into a period cheerfully known as "the reign of terror", then succumbed to Imperialism under Napoleon, then reverted back to Monarchy, then back to Napoleon, then something else, and ended up a "modern" nation at the start of WW1 in the sense that that they had been powerful when Napoleon was around.
Britain had a much differnt social situation, to be sure, but they opted for progressive change (Burke style), and ended up as a Parlimentary Monarchy that ran the world until WW1.
Sure, its not a 1 to 1 comparison, and my history is sketchy and selective at best, but there is something to this. There are other options to just burning everything and hoping to start afresh.
Actually, a friend of mine and I were sort of joking about something similar. You can easily use violence to convince people to do what you want. The only problem is, you then have to be the only and best person inflicting violence on everyone, everywhere. When you set the scene as a violent struggle, you have to be as violent as those who would blow up kindergardens, and I personally don't have the stomach for that.
Originally posted by Liberator
For some comic relief, someone sent me this rather funny few pictures. It's probably shopped, but in some instances I'm not so sure, either way it's rather amusing.
http://www.thisblogrules.com/2010/03/dog-that-hasnt-missed-a-single-riot-for-years.html/
ha, cute
Originally posted by LiberatorFor some comic relief, someone sent me this rather funny few pictures. It's probably shopped, but in some instances I'm not so sure, either way it's rather amusing.
http://www.thisblogrules.com/2010/03/dog-that-hasnt-missed-a-single-riot-for-years.html/
HAHA absolutely brilliant 😆 😆
If it was shopped they did an amazing job on it, if not well it makes you think, maybe there´s some shapeshifting alien observing riots 😱
Mmm you make some good points. I've just come to believe that the only way to make something happen is to get out and do something about it.
Violent struggle isn't always necessarily the best option, but look at Ireland, if they hadn't fought against the British they would of never gotten to where they are today. I just think that these current powers are so set in stone that no amount of peaceful protest is going to move them.
And in regards to the youth, I think that's kind of unfair to say. I'm not exactly old but I still have values in radical political movements and have sacrificed some things for these beliefs. I think a large amount of the youth being the way they are is due to the poor education systems and media culture that tells kids it's "cool" to be an *******.
Maybe if the teachers got together and through a revolution...
(sorry Bic I didn't mean to sort of take over your topic)