[QatzelOk]

Haiti: 1915 - 1934, 1971, 1991 and 2004

wiki history of Haiti

[Cookie Monster]

Western Europe since 1991.

[Eauz]

Actually the republicans, allied with Stalinists, have played a primary part in crushing the syndicalist revolution in Catalonia

Which was a positive development. Syndicalists should be crushed anytime they develop or organise.

[Ombrageux]

It seems that worked out great for them. Just like when the German Communist Party attacked "social fascists" in the Weimar Republic.

[Dave]

It's pretty funny how capitalist countries always destroy socialist ones yet socialists keep trying anyway. You can train a puppy not to shit in a house in a few weeks, but for some reason socialists don't get this lesson. I've maintained, repeatedly, that if any particular social system does not take into account external realities that it is not a viable system, regardless of its other merits.

[Ombrageux]

That truth, Dave, remains the fundamental appeal behind Trotskyism. It is nothing but a name to a bizarre set of Western micro-sects. Trotskyism as a world-view however has a ruthless logic to it in "permanent revolution". Trotsky had always said socialism could not survive in one country. If Europe had gone the other way between 1917 and 1919, as often seemed likely in Italy, Hungary, and above all Germany, then who knows what would have been possible. Today, I agree, any kind of autarkic "socialism" is ridiculous. And those who legitimately care for the needy should not destroy their people in thoughtless confrontation with the greater powers. That is the reason any number of anticolonial and Marxist revolutionaries cannot claim legitimacy when struggle in the name of implausible ambitions has a cost in millions..

[Dave]

More or less. If socialism is to succeed it needs to capture the greatest nations in the world--or somehow destroy them. Otherwise great nations will simply destroy socialist states every time they appear.

This day and age the same likely applies to fascism as well.

[Plaro]

That is why we need to get the support of the military, roll in with tanks into Washington, then deport all non-European immigrants to their respective countries, and post-black-slaves to Liberia.

[sans-culotte]

Which was a positive development. Syndicalists should be crushed anytime they develop or organise.

Indeed - Stalin forbid the dictatorship of the proletariat from being perpetrated by the proletariat


Dave

It's pretty funny how capitalist countries always destroy socialist ones yet socialists keep trying anyway. You can train a puppy not to shit in a house in a few weeks, but for some reason socialists don't get this lesson.

It wouldn't by so funny if that were true, but it is funny that the "socialists" themselves actually destroy their own system even more willingly than they construct it.

I've maintained, repeatedly, that if any particular social system does not take into account external realities that it is not a viable system, regardless of its other merits

Socialism in this context is actually a great tool to deal with external realities, mainly to concentrate economic force on developmentalism and gain a foothold in the international division of labour in the face of unaccommodating world markets. That's why it's always attempted in areas disadvantaged in the world markets. Of course it has to be applied competently, which has not always been the case

[Eauz]

Indeed - Stalin forbid the dictatorship of the proletariat from being perpetrated by the proletariat

No, I don't think this would have happened, even if Stalin had stayed away. I just don't think that the syndicalists were concerned with developing a socialist society, nor would it have been strong enough to have sustained itself. It just didn't have the support for its existence in the first place. Sometimes, even socialist have to cut all ties and move on.

[QatzelOk]

It's pretty funny how capitalist countries always destroy socialist ones yet socialists keep trying anyway. You can train a puppy not to shit in a house in a few weeks, but for some reason socialists don't get this lesson. I've maintained, repeatedly, that if any particular social system does not take into account external realities that it is not a viable system, regardless of its other merits.

I actually agree with Dave here.

A lot of naive socialist leaders think they can liberate their people from business-interests WITHOUT FIRST blowing up our world trade centers.

If you're not willing to destroy America, you're just asking for terrorists from Miami to drop vials of deadly diseases in your streets.

(A Florida-based terrorist dropped a few vials of Ebola virus in Cuba a few years ago (part of podcast linked above). And this is probably why the US state department fears Cuba so much: because the state department knows very well "why they hate us.")

[Cookie Monster]

Well you gotta start somewhere. It is not like you can start the revolution on a global scale.
But considering repercussions by capitalist states, the revolution in North America / Europe seems essential.

[Ombrageux]

Qatz wins.

We are all terrorists now.

[sans-culotte]

No, I don't think this would have happened, even if Stalin had stayed away. I just don't think that the syndicalists were concerned with developing a socialist society, nor would it have been strong enough to have sustained itself. It just didn't have the support for its existence in the first place. Sometimes, even socialist have to cut all ties and move on.

The working class and the rural poor of Catalonia were actually collectivising property and procuring the control of collective assemblies over it - is this not developing a socialist society?
Yes, the new society may well have degenerated due to an inadequate material base, but it was cut short by the republicans and stalinists way before it reached its potential

[Eauz]

Yes, the new society may well have degenerated due to an inadequate material base, but it was cut short by the republicans and stalinists way before it reached its potential

Who cares? This whole thread is an example of what is wrong with socialism in its present state.

IF ONLY... this and IF ONLY... that, doesn't cut it in reality. At the time, there were numerous factions within the syndicalist camp as well as the communist camp. So all these experiments were destroyed in some form, it's over, stop crying about it. The point of this thread SHOULD have been to theorise and learn from the failures of these struggles, not to blame Stalin or the evil capitalists. What COULD the syndicalists have done to have been more successful? How can it be used to benefit our present day society, if anything?

[QatzelOk]

numerous factions

If the only way to defeat capitalism is to become a giant, hierarchial anthill LIKE CAPITALISM, then it's not going to accomplish anything.

Being an anthill is not the way to defeat "anthillism."

You will just end up creating socialist alienation to replace the capitalist alienation you had a violent revolution to get rid of.

And I don't think this is a crying thread, so much as a thread that asks the reader to take stock of the real-world conditions that socialism has got to be introduced into. Many political movements of the 20th Century got their primary boost by promising to fight organized crime gangs - to clean up all the theft and gang extortion.

Looking at how organized crime - linked to capitalist governments - destroys all movements aimed at improving economic equality and social justice, is an important step in formulating a way to proceed.

Socialism isn't a complicated theory. It's a fairly universal social ideal - like peace and health - but it's one that requires a complicated strategy to get rid of all the social garbage that was allowed to fester in its absence.

[Eauz]

Ok, Qatz, I'll give up Socialism just for you. Are you happy?

[ingliz]

Many political movements of the 20th Century got their primary boost by promising to fight organized crime gangs - to clean up all the theft and gang extortion.

Do you suggest we organise a neighbourhood watch scheme? If so, how would you set it up, should we take the 'Black Panthers' as our model or would you prefer the pacifist softly softly approach of the 'Guardian Angels'?

[sans-culotte]

Eauz, the OP question is unambiguous:

What other socialist experiments were forced to fail by armed Western intervention?

I have brought in an example whereby socialist development would evidently have proceeded had it not been undermined by republicans and stalinists in a wartime situation - it's a valid example, and according to the OP the point of the thread is to give valid examples. If you want to theorise or learn please do so.

[Cookie Monster]

If the only way to defeat capitalism is to become a giant, hierarchial anthill LIKE CAPITALISM, then it's not going to accomplish anything.

Being an anthill is not the way to defeat "anthillism."

You will just end up creating socialist alienation to replace the capitalist alienation you had a violent revolution to get rid of.

And I don't think this is a crying thread, so much as a thread that asks the reader to take stock of the real-world conditions that socialism has got to be introduced into. Many political movements of the 20th Century got their primary boost by promising to fight organized crime gangs - to clean up all the theft and gang extortion.

Are you an anarchist Qatzelok? Which society do you take as example? Anarchist Catalonia of the 30's?