celticnachos
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Russia could have jumped straight into socialism in 1918 but only if North America and the rest of Europe had jumped at the same time, i.e socialism was immediately possible in 1918 but not just in one country.
I thought you were all anti-Trotsky, you do know that is permanent revolution?
"In regards to the Russian Revolution, we been through it before. It was a doomed socialist revolution if the majority of people did not desire or understand socialism" How do you expect the majority of the people to desire or understand socialism without an authoritative apparatus ?? You have to accept that not all people are conscious, and that you even have backward thinking people, that will refute socialism in every way they can. Localism can be obtained through workers councils, but only if there is a revolutionary vangaurd that uses forms of influence to make unsconscious people conscious of socialism. The idea of democratic centralism is to lead the way for the dictataorship of the proletariat, a member of the state would represent the proletariat, it is only the proletariat that can make a revolution a success. And Trotsky had a different perspective on the "stop gap measure." Once the Soviet Union had achieved advanced capitalism, it could assist other revolutions, like an international vangaurd. So then, the workers can come to power in economically backward countries. You sound like a reformist or a uptoian socialist if you believe the majority of the people will suddenly become conscious.
"Russia did have a revolution back in 1917; it just wasn't a socialist one as Lenin and others professed it to be." Lenin never said that the true revolution was going to be in Russia gnome. It was about to become a true international socialist revolution until Stalin got involved. They were building socialism, you all seem very very unrealistic if you think just because material conditions might be good for the democratic planning of the economy by the people that you can just jump right into it. In this world today people are not enough well-informed, there are even capitalist uprisings that are trying to have a fascist movement (Tea Party), you need a vanguard party. And socialism cannot be in just one country, Lenin and others did not claim the Soviet Union as socialist, because socialism was something to be international.
I have a question. Even if you do think material conditions for world socialism exist now, how are you sure that the revolution will be successful? What if a capitalist uprising is created to stop the socialist revolution, and leads to fascism? Vangaurdism will be necessary to lead a revolution that will ultimatley be socialist in nature, and that will be successful. Insurrections are against the purpose of the revolution. Without a vangaurd party to keep things in control, an insurrection can defeat the revolution. "When we say the state, the state is we, it is we, it is the proletariat, it is the advanced gaurd of the working class." – Lenin. It's a fact the majority of the members of the state were wage earners.
Lenin had to use vangaurdism and state capitalism in Russia because he believed the Russian revolution was not the "real revolution." In Marxist theory the revolution would take place in the most advanced capitalist area, during Lenin's time that would be Germany. I don't understand the point when you say Trotskyism is hypocritical, because his theory on permanent revolution is that it would be impossible for socialism to take place in one country. The tsarist regime was insanely corrupt, and using the Soviet Union took keep things in place and to help organize and assist other revolutions would make sure that socialism would be established. If Lenin hadn't implentned the NEP then the country would've gone to turmoil. Conditions were very bad for Russia after the revolution.
I am defending the USSR's case before Stalin. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were about to create the most democratic regime of all time, although there was not an abundance of resources in Russia. Once Stalin took control, he did not assist revolutions in Germany and China, and implicated Socialism in One Country. Trotskyist's oppose this idea, and believe in proleterian internationalism, and permanent revolution. Once socialism unfolds in other countries, resources are no longer scarce. If Stalin supported the German and Chinese revolutions, and was a true Marxist, imagine how different things would be. "Mechanical centralism is necessarily complemented by factionalism, which is at once a malicious caricature of democracy and a potential political danger." – Trotsky http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/newcourse/x01.htm Trotskyism is not hypocritical.
Thanks for the reply man! I should probably research more about these parties histories. Eugene Debs is certainly an interesting man, yet you critique reform. Eugene Debs was a pacifist, I thought he supported a reformist approach to socialism, am I wrong? I thought he condemned the violent Russian Revolution.
A vangaurd party is somtimes necessary under certain material conditions, in Lenin's State and Revolution he says that over a period of time everyone will participate in running the state, eventually leading to no state. That's why I believe in socialist internationalism, one of the core tenets of trotskyism, and he is the one Marxist theoretician that critiqued socialism in one country. Although, if material conditions are too scarce, complete democratic planning is impossible, because there wouldn't be enough resources to provide for all. Trotskyism is not hypocrtical.
Can you elaborate on, a much earlier tradition? I believe that socialism is an international objective, and I support proleterian internationalism. I am sure we can agree on that. I am for the democratic planning of the government, and support democratic socialism. Thanks for watching my video alanjjohnstone.
