[SolarCross]

What happened to the soviets after the October coup?

Also 1917 was like more than a 100 years ago! The world has moved on, get with the times.

[ckaihatsu]

What happened to the soviets after the October coup?

It wasn't an elitist coup, or putsch, it was an actual proletarian revolution.

Don't thank me -- thank Wikipedia:

The October Revolution,[a] officially known in Soviet historiography as the Great October Socialist Revolution[b] and commonly referred to as the October Uprising, the October Coup, the Bolshevik Revolution,[2] the Bolshevik Coup, or the Red October, was a revolution in Russia led by the Bolshevik Party of Vladimir Lenin that was instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917–1923. It took place through an armed insurrection in Petrograd on 25 October (Old Style, O.S.; 7 November, New Style or N.S.) 1917.

The October Revolution had followed and capitalized on the February Revolution earlier in the year. The February Revolution had overthrown the Tsarist autocracy, resulting in a provisional government. The provisional government had taken power after being proclaimed by Grand Duke Michael, Tsar Nicholas II's younger brother, declined to take power after the Tsar had stepped down.

During this time, urban workers began to organize into councils (soviets) wherein revolutionaries criticized the provisional government and its actions. After the Congress of Soviets, the new governing body, had its second session it elected members of the Bolsheviks and other left-wing groups such as the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (Left SR) to important positions within the new state of affairs. This immediately initiated the establishment of the Russian Soviet Republic. On 17 July 1918,[c] the Tsar and his family, including his five children aged 13 to 22, were executed.

The revolution was led by the Bolsheviks, who used their influence in the Petrograd Soviet to organize the armed forces. Bolshevik Red Guards forces under the Military-Revolutionary Committee began the occupation of government buildings on 25 October (O.S.; 7 November, N.S.), 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace (the seat of the Provisional government located in Petrograd, then capital of Russia) was captured.

The slogan of the October revolution was All Power to the Soviets, meaning all power to grassroots democratically elected councils. For a time, this was observed, with the interim Bolshevik-only Sovnarkom or Soviet government replaced by a Bolshevik-Left SR coalition government with an All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets composed of all representatives of all factions who supported Soviet power and legally entrenching the peasant land seizures. Throughout 1918, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which resulted in a Left SR walkout, and other policies disputed by both the other pro-soviet parties and minority factions of the Bolsheviks progressively dissipated until 1920, where there were no free elections, but delegates were appointed by a party state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution

---

Also 1917 was like more than a 100 years ago! The world has moved on, get with the times.

Nope, the world hasn't. We're still under bourgeois hegemony, the world over.

[SolarCross]

We are the "bourgeois hegemony".

[ckaihatsu]

We are the "bourgeois hegemony".

We *who*??

Who have you gotten yourself into bed with??

(grin)

[SolarCross]

We *who*??

Who have you gotten yourself into bed with??

(grin)

Certainly anyone who is happy to live in a democracy, likes to buy stuff at the supermarket, pines for having more money to spend. If you are so desperate to have shares in a company there are literally millions who are eager to sell you a share. You can start your own business. The opportunities are limitless.

I only go to bed with my wife. She likes her job at a supermarket but wants me to do better at my enterprises so that we can have more money to spend. Our son is a literal genius and has a great chance of being the next Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. If anything we want more capitalism not less. Capitalism offers us the chance of having a fabulous lifestyle that is tailored exactly to very personal and peculiar requirements. Communism is the opposite, a grass eating terror state where we are brutalised if we do not conform to an actually absurd ideology and even if do conform we must endure permanent and mandatory poverty that would embarrass a slave in ancient times.

I choose capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

Certainly anyone who is happy to live in a democracy, likes to buy stuff at the supermarket, pines for having more money to spend. If you are so desperate to have shares in a company there are literally millions who are eager to sell you a share. You can start your own business. The opportunities are limitless.

I only go to bed with my wife. She likes her job at a supermarket but wants me to do better at my enterprises so that we can have more money to spend. Our son is a literal genius and has a great chance of being the next Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates. If anything we want more capitalism not less. Capitalism offers us the chance of having a fabulous lifestyle that is tailored exactly to very personal and peculiar requirements. Communism is the opposite, a grass eating terror state where we are brutalised if we do not conform to an actually absurd ideology and even if do conform we must endure permanent and mandatory poverty that would embarrass a slave in ancient times.

I choose capitalism.

Lovely. Take a photo.

Now how about *these* people:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

[SolarCross]

Lovely. Take a photo.

Now how about *these* people:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

How about them? I have been a homeless beggar myself a long time ago. It is far better to be a beggar in a capitalist country than a commissar in a communist country. If there is capitalism there is wealth and where there is wealth there is the possibility of a donation or a helping hand up.

Who helps the beggars when everyone is a beggar?

[ckaihatsu]

How about them? I have been a homeless beggar myself a long time ago. It is far better to be a beggar in a capitalist country than a commissar in a communist country. If there is capitalism there is wealth and where there is wealth there is the possibility of a donation or a helping hand up.

Who helps the beggars when everyone is a beggar?

You're answering your own question here -- if capitalism has brought us / the world to the point of so much wealth, then why are people still impoverished?

Instead of relegating everyone to have to beg, why not just have some kind of system in which people simply get *what they need* for modern life, without any fuss or use of money? Think of it as the domain of free air, but extended to everything else that we all need for life and living.

Maybe after *that*, and full automation, we can talk about 'market competition' for more-discretionary kinds of production.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show

[SolarCross]

You're answering your own question here -- if capitalism has brought us / the world to the point of so much wealth, then why are people still impoverished?

Sure some people are. Everyone's story is individual, they are like books in a library, a library with 8 billion books each a billion pages long. You are asking me to summarise in a few lines the plots of at least a million of those books. One guy is alcoholic, another is was an outed and ostacised pedo, another was wiped out by a convulsion in the stock market, another just had psychotic parents and grew up maladjusted, another was doxxed by leftist lunatics, another was literally just bone idle and liked having free time more than he liked the comforts that money can buy, another was just born stupid and charmless, on and on. There are a billion ways to get or stay broke. Such is life. Capitalism is not the cause of this, but capitalism does generate the ambient wealth to ameliorate that poverty.

If you want to help the poor then you should forget leftardism, sign up with a church or charity and then charm some wealthy people for donations to help the good cause. This way is a million times more effective. You won't though because leftist do not care about the poor they care about gaining "power" for themselves, you are just using them. There is a word for that now, "concern troll".

Instead of relegating everyone to have to beg, why not just have some kind of system in which people simply get *what they need* for modern life, without any fuss or use of money? Think of it as the domain of free air, but extended to everything else that we all need for life and living.

The vast majority of people do not beg they negotiate. You need to explain to me why I should give up my right negotiate for myself.

Maybe after *that*, and full automation, we can talk about 'market competition' for more-discretionary kinds of production.

The "capitalists" are working on exactly that and have been since forever. What do you think farmers were doing tying metal blades to the backs of oxen to plough their fields for them 9 thousand years ago? Automation is a work in progress, but you are not advancing it at all. If you want more automation, help a tech company in some way, learn engineering and get a job, buy shares in a tech company or even just offer to sweep their floors and make coffee. If you want to help that is what you should do, but you do not want to help. Your "automation" is just a trick to try and fool us into thinking your monopolitistic grabbing will not cause another economic train wreck because this time you have magical automation.

[ingliz]

If there is capitalism there is wealth and where there is wealth there is the possibility of a donation or a helping hand up.

The chances of making it, Horatio Alger-style, from a childhood in poverty to an adulthood in affluence (i.e. moving from bottom to top income quintile) are lower in the U.S. than in other advanced economies. The American Dream is in better shape in Canada.

One guy is alcoholic, another is was an outed and ost[r]acised pedo, another was wiped out by a convulsion in the stock market, another just had psychotic parents and grew up maladjusted, another was doxxed by leftist lunatics, another was literally just bone idle and liked having free time more than he liked the comforts that money can buy, another was just born stupid and charmless, on and on.

Which one are you?

[SolarCross]

The chances of making it, Horatio Alger-style, from a childhood in poverty to an adulthood in affluence (i.e. moving from bottom to top income quintile) are lower in the U.S. than in other advanced economies. The American Dream is in better shape in Canada.

Maybe, but Canada is a capitalist country, so what does that prove?

[ckaihatsu]

Sure some people are. Everyone's story is individual, they are like books in a library, a library with 8 billion books each a billion pages long. You are asking me to summarise in a few lines the plots of at least a million of those books. One guy is alcoholic, another is was an outed and ostacised pedo, another was wiped out by a convulsion in the stock market, another just had psychotic parents and grew up maladjusted, another was doxxed by leftist lunatics, another was literally just bone idle and liked having free time more than he liked the comforts that money can buy, another was just born stupid and charmless, on and on. There are a billion ways to get or stay broke. Such is life.

Okay, you're taking a rather *granular* approach to all of this -- if one-or-another person happened to have some individual misfortune and was a little 'out-of-things' for awhile, that could be chalked up to individuality, or one's individual life-path, but when these misfortunes are happening to an entire *percentage* of the population, including you or me, then there's something at work that's *beyond* (more-generalized-than) just this-or-that person.

Capitalism is not the cause of this, but capitalism does generate the ambient wealth to ameliorate that poverty.

If you can tout your individual happy-family story as being *enabled* by the overarching system of capitalism, then I can just as validly point to all of the *wasted time* stories of non-players within capitalism who find things overwhelming and are chronically down-on-their-luck.

If people can make some money by *begging*, then capitalism *does* have the 'ambient wealth' to address that poverty. It needs to happen *more systematically*, though, so that *everyone* has what they need, and is not in an open-ended, jungle-like competition for the mere basics of modern life.

We could start by diverting *warfare* money to addressing people's *human* needs -- instead of *destroying* lives on the other side of the globe, how about *building* infrastructure for people locally, and also abroad?


---

If you want to help the poor then you should forget leftardism, sign up with a church or charity and then charm some wealthy people for donations to help the good cause. This way is a million times more effective. You won't though because leftist do not care about the poor they care about gaining "power" for themselves, you are just using them. There is a word for that now, "concern troll".

No, I'm rightly blaming capitalism for existing social ills, and noting that only the world's *working class* has the potential (global) social organization to tackle social ills like global warming, poverty, etc.

The vast majority of people do not beg they negotiate. You need to explain to me why I should give up my right negotiate for myself.

Again, the burning meta-issue here is:

Should people have to do 'x' individually, over billions of lives, or should 'x' be *collectivized* so that almost *no one* has to do it? (full automation)

The "capitalists" are working on exactly that and have been since forever. What do you think farmers were doing tying metal blades to the backs of oxen to plough their fields for them 9 thousand years ago? Automation is a work in progress, but you are not advancing it at all. If you want more automation, help a tech company in some way, learn engineering and get a job, buy shares in a tech company or even just offer to sweep their floors and make coffee. If you want to help that is what you should do, but you do not want to help. Your "automation" is just a trick to try and fool us into thinking your monopolitistic grabbing will not cause another economic train wreck because this time you have magical automation.

You're conveniently forgetting that *government* exists -- this is a partial, quasi-collectivization that at least can provide some degree of social organization, as it currently does for warfare, for example.

Government should at least provide for human needs, and it already has the existing social organization for doing so. You're being too granular over issues that are *societal* and *governmental* in nature.

[ckaihatsu]

Also:

Scope of offshore banking

Offshore banking constitutes a sizable portion of the international financial system. Experts believe that as much as half the world's capital flows through offshore centers. Tax havens have 1.2% of the world's population and hold 26% of the world's wealth, including 31% of the net profits of United States multinationals. An estimated £13-20 trillion is hoarded away in offshore accounts.[11]

Some $3 trillion is in deposits in tax haven banks and the rest is in securities held by international business companies (IBCs) and trusts. Among offshore banks, Swiss banks hold an estimated 35% of the world's private and institutional funds (or 3 trillion Swiss francs), and the Cayman Islands (1.9 trillion US dollars in deposits) are the fifth largest banking centre globally in terms of deposits.[12] However, recent data by the Swiss National Bank show that the assets held by foreign persons in Swiss bank accounts declined by 28.1% between January 2008 and November 2009.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_ ... re_banking

[ingliz]

Canada is...

... a social democracy.

The social democracy of Canadian federalism.

Parties calling themselves social democrat govern three quarters of Canadians in five provinces and one territory.

[SolarCross]

Okay, you're taking a rather *granular* approach to all of this -- if one-or-another person happened to have some individual misfortune and was a little 'out-of-things' for awhile, that could be chalked up to individuality, or one's individual life-path, but when these misfortunes are happening to an entire *percentage* of the population, including you or me, then there's something at work that's *beyond* (more-generalized-than) just this-or-that person.

It is not a conspiracy. However much wealth there is, some percentage are going to be on the wrong end of the bell curve. The only thing that helps on the macro, if you do not like granular, is moving the bell curve towards more overall prosperity. That is what free enterprise has been doing since the dawn of time and it still doing that and at a very fast pace too. That is capitalism.

If you can tout your individual happy-family story as being *enabled* by the overarching system of capitalism, then I can just as validly point to all of the *wasted time* stories of non-players within capitalism who find things overwhelming and are chronically down-on-their-luck.

The point of my personal story was it illustrate why I have made my choice.

If people can make some money by *begging*, then capitalism *does* have the 'ambient wealth' to address that poverty. It needs to happen *more systematically*, though, so that *everyone* has what they need, and is not in an open-ended, jungle-like competition for the mere basics of modern life.

The "open-ended, jungle-like competition" created the modern life and all its wealth. Totalitarian "systems" are proven garbage.

We could start by diverting *warfare* money to addressing people's *human* needs -- instead of *destroying* lives on the other side of the globe, how about *building* infrastructure for people locally, and also abroad?

The warfare money is commanded by military types not civilians. Those people are tough and a bit killy. Taking money from them is probably not worth the trouble. Besides any money you rob from them will just weaken national defence and that creates opportunities for other militarise to start a war. Wars are started by the weak as much as the strong, by tempting aggressors. If the US dialed its military spending down to 0% how long before the Chinese Communist Parties Army invades? Oh but that is what you want is it not? I see, you are working for the CCP? Funny, i thought you were just another helpless crank like me.

No, I'm rightly blaming capitalism for existing social ills, and noting that only the world's *working class* has the potential (global) social organization to tackle social ills like global warming, poverty, etc.

You are crazy if you believe that, but it is just a story you are telling for the plans of the CCP I guess. So a lie.

Again, the burning meta-issue here is:

Should people have to do 'x' individually, over billions of lives, or should 'x' be *collectivized* so that almost *no one* has to do it? (full automation)

Dude, you are not automating anything. Your fully automated borg cube is just a fantasy. The "capitalists" are actually doing it. IN THE REAL WORLD. Credit where credit is due, for fucks sake.

You're conveniently forgetting that *government* exists -- this is a partial, quasi-collectivization that at least can provide some degree of social organization, as it currently does for warfare, for example.

Government should at least provide for human needs, and it already has the existing social organization for doing so. You're being too granular over issues that are *societal* and *governmental* in nature.

Every organisation is a "collective" then, including families, social clubs churches and civilian corporations. The government is an organisation for doing war and that is all it is actually any good at. When I want to buy a steak i do not go to a church, when I want to talk to someone about the afterlife I do not go the supermarket. Why would I go to a military organisation to help some beggars? The only reason you want the only organisation in society that exists to do violence to do everything else too is because you want a society where everything is done by slaves. Slaves are persuaded by violence not by reward.

[SolarCross]

... a social democracy.

The social democracy of Canadian federalism.

Parties calling themselves social democrat govern three quarters of Canadians in five provinces and one territory.

It is a capitalist country. The political parties can call themselves whatever they like but when people are hungry they go to their nearest civilian baker not the national bread collective.

[ckaihatsu]

It is not a conspiracy.

I never said it was -- you're *misrepresenting* what I'm saying.

I said that it was a *general trend*, meaning that poverty, like global warming, is 'above', or 'beyond' any individual cases of causation. When there's a *percentage* of society impoverished, it's an indication that there are *social* factors involved.

However much wealth there is, some percentage are going to be on the wrong end of the bell curve. The only thing that helps on the macro, if you do not like granular, is moving the bell curve towards more overall prosperity. That is what free enterprise has been doing since the dawn of time and it still doing that and at a very fast pace too. That is capitalism.

Do you *realize* how *desperate* you're sounding?

Not only are you willingly admitting that there's an overall unequal distribution involved (the bell curve), but you're making it sound as though commodity-type trading goes back to the days of early anthropology.

So *which* is it -- does capitalism generate massive wealth that's distributed unequally, or is it providing prosperity to 'everyone' -- ?

Why would *anyone* advocate a system of material economics that distributes wealth unequally, in favor of accumulations of hoards of capital ($1.9 trillion in the Cayman Islands alone) that just *sit* there, not circulating, and certainly are not addressing the outstanding, unmet needs of impoverished people who are suffering daily, needlessly?

The point of my personal story was it illustrate why I have made my choice.

You're not even responding to what I've said -- you're *sidestepping* it.

The "open-ended, jungle-like competition" created the modern life and all its wealth. Totalitarian "systems" are proven garbage.

Good. I'm not *advocating* any totalitarian systems.

And, just because something has worked *before*, doesn't mean that it's working *now*. Capitalism / markets works well under conditions of *scarcity*, but once the scarcity conditions have been overcome, it can't handle *abundance* well, and actually encourages *destruction*, as with world wars, for the sake of artificially creating new markets -- artificial scarcity.

The warfare money is commanded by military types not civilians. Those people are tough and a bit killy. Taking money from them is probably not worth the trouble. Besides any money you rob from them will just weaken national defence and that creates opportunities for other militarise to start a war. Wars are started by the weak as much as the strong, by tempting aggressors. If the US dialed its military spending down to 0% how long before the Chinese Communist Parties Army invades? Oh but that is what you want is it not? I see, you are working for the CCP? Funny, i thought you were just another helpless crank like me.

Doesn't any of this strike you as being *problematic* in the least?

Why are you *defending* a global system that solves its problems through warfare?

No, I'm not for this-or-that nation -- I said before, and I'm saying now, that the *workers* of the *world* need to be running society's production and distribution.

You are crazy if you believe that, but it is just a story you are telling for the plans of the CCP I guess. So a lie.

All you're doing is *imputing* -- I *never* said that I defend China's elitist bureaucracy.

Dude, you are not automating anything. Your fully automated borg cube is just a fantasy. The "capitalists" are actually doing it. IN THE REAL WORLD. Credit where credit is due, for fucks sake.

I never implied or stated support for totalitarianism, or fictional or real-world fantasies, either.

Do you really think you're doing anything by misrepresenting the politics of the person you're discussing with? What you're doing you could do *offline*, on a text editor, and not bother me with your one-sided bullshit.

Every organisation is a "collective" then, including families, social clubs churches and civilian corporations. The government is an organisation for doing war and that is all it is actually any good at. When I want to buy a steak i do not go to a church, when I want to talk to someone about the afterlife I do not go the supermarket. Why would I go to a military organisation to help some beggars?

You're willfully missing the point -- since government runs on money like anything else, the *point* is to *redirect* its budget priorities, in the short term, and to take its functioning out of its hands in the long term, so that workers can collectively do that without nation-states whatsoever.

The only reason you want the only organisation in society that exists to do violence to do everything else too is because you want a society where everything is done by slaves. Slaves are persuaded by violence not by reward.

Where are you getting this bullshit from? You're incorrect on what my politics are and you're just spewing bullshit. Either get more accurate, or don't bother. This isn't a discussion if you're going to be so one-sided.

[Rich]

Is George Soros paying you to say that? Sweet gravy train...!

I thoought @SolarCross was opposed to Soros's Islamification agenda.

[ingliz]

capitalist

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented economy. Some people, including myself, see it as a wishy-washy half way house between capitalism and socialism that just allows the system to stagger on.

Anyway, using your definition, you lot keep saying Bernie is a Marxist, I assumed social democracy was socialist enough to be called socialism by an ignorant American who wouldn't know socialism if it landed on his head.

[SolarCross]

I never said it was -- you're *misrepresenting* what I'm saying.

I said that it was a *general trend*, meaning that poverty, like global warming, is 'above', or 'beyond' any individual cases of causation. When there's a *percentage* of society impoverished, it's an indication that there are *social* factors involved.

The general trend is very, very, very good. And the opportunities that are on the horizon with AI, biotech, cheaper transits to LEO etc etc are going to push the bell curve so far to the right that even beggars will live billionaires do now. I guess you would rather be borg drone, maybe we can sort that out for you. You could live in a VR simulation of your perfect borg utopia. You could even be the borg queen if you like. All the leftards need to do is not get in the way.
Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

Not only are you willingly admitting that there's an overall unequal distribution involved (the bell curve), but you're making it sound as though commodity-type trading goes back to the days of early anthropology.

Trade is the foundation of civilisation. If you do not have trade then there is just raiding.

Admin edit: Rule 2 Violation

So *which* is it -- does capitalism generate massive wealth that's distributed unequally, or is it providing prosperity to 'everyone' -- ?

It is both, obviously.

Why would *anyone* advocate a system of material economics that distributes wealth unequally, in favor of accumulations of hoards of capital ($1.9 trillion in the Cayman Islands alone) that just *sit* there, not circulating, and certainly are not addressing the outstanding, unmet needs of impoverished people who are suffering daily, needlessly?

Raw output is pretty good reason, but also the moral principle that people should be able to control their own resources without being bullied or robbed. It is unwise to underestimate how much civilisation depends on that basic compact. If the wealth of the rich is not safe then neither is the wealth of poor and we all get poorer. Why even get up in the morning if you will be robbed down to the shirt on your back no matter what you do? We might as well go back to living like hunter-gatherers.

sidestepping

Everyone does that including you. I do not even remember what you said now so good luck chasing that one down.

soemthing, quotes broke

If we let you run your experiment somewhere and it made all the rich people poor and all the poor people die of starvation. Would you count that as win for the CCP or would you be sad and rethink your ideas?