- 03 Oct 2004 16:29
#469672
And just how successful was Russia in WWI? Russian troops were being sent 'over the top' with no weapons. The soldiers were expected to pick up their fallen comrades' rifles. Many of the front line troops didn't even have boots to wear. All of these critical shortages of supplies, weapons and uniforms were what led to Tsarist Russia's catastrophic defeat in WWI, which led directly to the fall of Tsarism in February 1917. And these shortages were caused by Tsarist Russia's lack of industrial development. That problem had been solved by 1941.
What I'm saying is the fact that it is through industrialisation that The CCCP became a superpower. If you'd suggested to anyone in America or Britain in 1921 that the Soviet Union was a superpower, they would have laughed in your face. It was one of the most backward nations in Europe.
It was one of the most successful, as well as one of the most brutal and mismanaged, economic reform plans of all time. As I said, I have no time for Stalin, and I do not credit him with Russia's successful industrialisation. I credit the ordinary workers and peasants of the Soviet Union with that.
Perhaps so, but that wasn't the issue. You claimed that exploitation continued under Communism, and I pointed out that this was not technically correct.
How so? Modern industry remains exploitative, by its very nature.
No no no! A class hierarchy is a particular kind of hierarchy. There are others. For example, a racial hierarchy (eg, Nazi Germany) is not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy, but is still a hierarchy. The caste system in India is not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy. The Stalinist system was a bureaucratic hierarchy, not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy.
No, levying higher taxes on the ruling class is itself just simple reform. To expropriate the expropriators by taking all of their wealth, now that would be an attack on the ruling class. And Blair has not just weakened the power of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, he has effectively ended it. In a sense, this can be seen as a revolution of the bourgeois class (represented by New labour, which is a bourgeois liberal party, not a socialist party) against the last remnants of feudalism in our political system. It really does qualify as a revolutionary act (though a bourgeois revolution rather than a proletarian revolution) against the hereditary aristocracy.
'Rich' is not quite the same thing as 'ruling class' (it tends to be so in America, but not in countries like Saudi Arabia or Britain). Fundamentalists like Osama were frustrated by their lack of political power within their own countries, and have opted to try to overthrow the ruling elites of those countries by force. Most of their recruits are drawn from the disaffected lower classes.
There's a big difference between not accepting spoon-fed opinions, and being a fucking ignoramus. Nobody says that you must accept everything Adam Smith wrote as gospel truth, and neither do I accept everything Marx or Lenin wrote as gospel truth. You read what they wrote, and then you think about it and draw your own conclusions. If you don't even read what they actually wrote, you can't even begin to think about it.
MosesWasALibertarian wrote:Yes, but Russia was industrialized beforehand or else they could have never fought in WWI.
And just how successful was Russia in WWI? Russian troops were being sent 'over the top' with no weapons. The soldiers were expected to pick up their fallen comrades' rifles. Many of the front line troops didn't even have boots to wear. All of these critical shortages of supplies, weapons and uniforms were what led to Tsarist Russia's catastrophic defeat in WWI, which led directly to the fall of Tsarism in February 1917. And these shortages were caused by Tsarist Russia's lack of industrial development. That problem had been solved by 1941.
If the industrial base is negligible beforehand and is of superpower status afterwards, I think it is reasonable to talk about a process of 'industrialisation' having occurred.
Superpowers don't mean anything in industrialization (though it did help).
What I'm saying is the fact that it is through industrialisation that The CCCP became a superpower. If you'd suggested to anyone in America or Britain in 1921 that the Soviet Union was a superpower, they would have laughed in your face. It was one of the most backward nations in Europe.
Oh, and I love how you marxists prance around the Five Year Plan as if it was the greatest economic reform plan of all time.
It was one of the most successful, as well as one of the most brutal and mismanaged, economic reform plans of all time. As I said, I have no time for Stalin, and I do not credit him with Russia's successful industrialisation. I credit the ordinary workers and peasants of the Soviet Union with that.
It may be morally just as reprehensible, but it is a different kind of process; strictly speaking, it is oppression rather than exploitation.
Except with exploitation, industrial reform can change it. With government opression no one an stop it.
Perhaps so, but that wasn't the issue. You claimed that exploitation continued under Communism, and I pointed out that this was not technically correct.
No, it is your relation to the mode of production which makes you exploitative, which is the same thing as saying that it is your class identity which makes you exploitative. You seem to believe that the fundamental mode of social relations is between individuals, whereas in fact it is between classes. A feudal lord cannot help but be oppressive to his peasants, no matter how 'nice' he may be as an individual. Likewise, the owner of a factory cannot help but be exploitative to his workers, no matter how 'nice' or humanitarian he may be as an individual.
Hardly. If that was true than you'd have to count out most modern industry.
How so? Modern industry remains exploitative, by its very nature.
A bureaucractic hierarchy is a social hierarchy. A class hierarchy is a different kind of social hierarchy.
That's what classes are! Social hierarchy!
No no no! A class hierarchy is a particular kind of hierarchy. There are others. For example, a racial hierarchy (eg, Nazi Germany) is not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy, but is still a hierarchy. The caste system in India is not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy. The Stalinist system was a bureaucratic hierarchy, not, strictly speaking, a class hierarchy.
But what is happening to the House of Lords is simple reform, now higher taxes upon the rich, that would be attack upon a class.
No, levying higher taxes on the ruling class is itself just simple reform. To expropriate the expropriators by taking all of their wealth, now that would be an attack on the ruling class. And Blair has not just weakened the power of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, he has effectively ended it. In a sense, this can be seen as a revolution of the bourgeois class (represented by New labour, which is a bourgeois liberal party, not a socialist party) against the last remnants of feudalism in our political system. It really does qualify as a revolutionary act (though a bourgeois revolution rather than a proletarian revolution) against the hereditary aristocracy.
It's also a struggle of the lower classes against the ruling elite, who tend to be secular and Westernised.
But aren't some of the richest people in the world (And the ruling class in some countries) islamic fundimentalists?
'Rich' is not quite the same thing as 'ruling class' (it tends to be so in America, but not in countries like Saudi Arabia or Britain). Fundamentalists like Osama were frustrated by their lack of political power within their own countries, and have opted to try to overthrow the ruling elites of those countries by force. Most of their recruits are drawn from the disaffected lower classes.
But seriously, how can you call yourself a 'Libertarian' and not have read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'? I'm a fucking Commie, and even I've read it.
I'm not very libertarian, I mainly think that because I find myself agreeing with libertarians on more and more issues. But, I don't like my opinions spoon-fed to me.
There's a big difference between not accepting spoon-fed opinions, and being a fucking ignoramus. Nobody says that you must accept everything Adam Smith wrote as gospel truth, and neither do I accept everything Marx or Lenin wrote as gospel truth. You read what they wrote, and then you think about it and draw your own conclusions. If you don't even read what they actually wrote, you can't even begin to think about it.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)