Is Bolshevik Communism really Marxist - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15182009
Ivan_R wrote:
Of course, it is very unfortunate. However, it is not an unfortunate exception. Because it was not just an abstract dictatorship. It was a dictatorship of urbanism. The latter was the result of rapid industrial development at that time, but that is not crucial.
Trotsky did not write that. I am afraid neither of those theorists even realized that. It is easy to think in terms of, say, reduction of disparities in incomes. However, the problem of disparity in possibilities based on plain geography seems to me both fundamental and almost unsolvable. IMHO, it is the main cause of all other disparities.
Any democracy is a dictatorship of urbanism too. So socialism is just not possible.



It could be said that the Bolshevik Revolution / workers councils was *inevitable*, given the emergent conditions of colonialism, competition, and industrialization in modern history.

We could ask 'Why were Russia and China held back? Why didn't the West *help* them industrialize, instead of seeing them as competitors -- ? Where's the sequel to the Marshall Plan? (etc.)
#15182016
Ivan_R wrote:
Of course, it is very unfortunate. However, it is not an unfortunate exception. Because it was not just an abstract dictatorship. It was a dictatorship of urbanism. The latter was the result of rapid industrial development at that time, but that is not crucial.
Trotsky did not write that. I am afraid neither of those theorists even realized that. It is easy to think in terms of, say, reduction of disparities in incomes.


Ivan_R wrote:
However, the problem of disparity in possibilities based on plain geography seems to me both fundamental and almost unsolvable. IMHO, it is the main cause of all other disparities.
Any democracy is a dictatorship of urbanism too. So socialism is just not possible.



Very presumptuous and *fatalistic* line, IR.

Do you really think that '[life and material] possibilities' is really correlated to 'plain geography', in the mile-by-mile sense / scale -- ?
#15182032
Let me come with generalities:
1- left-wing people must not be too dogmatic. I have very much read of right-wing philosophers and economists. Let us not underestimate the quality of their writings. In many topics, they have arguments stronger than traditional Marxist arguments. We must be able to evolve, to take account of their ideas, sometimes very fruitful.
2- I have mach read of Marx. I admire him, his personality and the novelty of his ideas in his time. But I cannot be a Marxist because there are to many weaknesses and errors in his theories, in the 3 fields he explored: philosophy, politics and economics. I think that left-wing thinking must abandon Marxism. We must be creative. Singing "The Internationale", people all around the world go on repeating "This is the final struggle". But we are today further from the FINAL struggle than we were one century ago. Why? For two reasons. Firstly, Bolshevism has made people disgusted with what they think being socialism. Secondly, despite a lot of good ideas, Marxism is not good enough to convince most normal persons that it is the key. I spend my time to explore what new left theories could be in the post-Marx world.
And I am certainly not a proponent of social-democratic ideas. You have read my proposition for creating a robust collective property of means of production, that every social-democrat would reject.
#15182035
Monti wrote:
Let me come with generalities:
1- left-wing people must not be too dogmatic. I have very much read of right-wing philosophers and economists. Let us not underestimate the quality of their writings. In many topics, they have arguments stronger than traditional Marxist arguments. We must be able to evolve, to take account of their ideas, sometimes very fruitful.
2- I have mach read of Marx. I admire him, his personality and the novelty of his ideas in his time. But I cannot be a Marxist because there are to many weaknesses and errors in his theories, in the 3 fields he explored: philosophy, politics and economics. I think that left-wing thinking must abandon Marxism. We must be creative. Singing "The Internationale", people all around the world go on repeating "This is the final struggle". But we are today further from the FINAL struggle than we were one century ago. Why? For two reasons. Firstly, Bolshevism has made people disgusted with what they think being socialism. Secondly, despite a lot of good ideas, Marxism is not good enough to convince most normal persons that it is the key. I spend my time to explore what new left theories could be in the post-Marx world.
And I am certainly not a proponent of social-democratic ideas. You have read my proposition for creating a robust collective property of means of production, that every social-democrat would reject.



Well, the world is still running in the interests of its *ruling class*, so *that* hasn't gone away....


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



The Difference Between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism Explained by a Marxist

#15182084
After 2 centuries, capitalists are yet the ruling class. As Marx told, ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. Anti-capitalists have not succeeded in making more convincing ideas than liberalism. Today, socialism must convince new people, people who think centre-right or right. Otherwise, it will disappear or maybe survive but in the 23th century, people will wonder why socialism is yet waiting for its time. We cannot go on with the same classical Marxist arguments.
#15182085
ckaihatsu wrote:Very presumptuous and *fatalistic* line, IR.

I do realize it may seem so. But the example with Bolshevism is most obvious. That is why I say it in this certain topic.
1. As you might probably know, the Bolshevik’s party was the party of workers AND peasants by definition.
2. The rapid industrialization resulted in the rapid development of cities. The majority of industrial plants, and thus the majority of workers, were concentrated in cities.
3. All bodies of power and governance were naturally concentrated in (larger) cities too.
4. Thus what began as the party of workers AND peasants ended up as the party of workers de facto in the mid 20-s. Nevertheless the majority of population were still peasants.
5. Further, the Bolsheviks cancelled (formally) the right to own any means of production. But they did not intend to cancel private property. Anyone could still save money, collect anything, etc. Which itself resulted in huge disparities even within cities.
6. All that resulted in a huge wave of migration to cities. Even if you could save some money you had practically no possibilities to spend them, if you lived somewhere else.
7. Obviously, peasants were far from being happy (they had never been before). So the Bolsheviks invented the so called ‘collectivization’ for them. That meant cancelling not only right of ownership of means of production and not only private property de facto (dekulakization). What is most striking, that was meant to stop the migration. Because peasants were denied the right to get the passport. Without which they could not even cross the city borders! That resulted in an unprecedented level of enslavement (de facto).
Here is why I say that was the dictatorship of urbanism. And I hope you understand the line of argumentation. You might object that could be something very specific to that certain country in that certain period. I’d say, it has just gotten much worse.
It is very uncomfortable idea, since the majority of us (intellectuals, etc) prefer to live in larger cities. And when we think of a justice, it is always the justice for people like us.

Have you seen ‘Nomadland’? Then you know what I mean.
#15182095
Monti wrote:
After 2 centuries, capitalists are yet the ruling class. As Marx told, ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. Anti-capitalists have not succeeded in making more convincing ideas than liberalism. Today, socialism must convince new people, people who think centre-right or right. Otherwise, it will disappear or maybe survive but in the 23th century, people will wonder why socialism is yet waiting for its time. We cannot go on with the same classical Marxist arguments.



*Or*, capitalism no longer has the hegemonic grip on people that it *used* to have, and such was evident in the rise of popularity for Bernie Sander's faux-socialism, in 2016.
#15182097
Ivan_R wrote:
I do realize it may seem so. But the example with Bolshevism is most obvious. That is why I say it in this certain topic.
1. As you might probably know, the Bolshevik’s party was the party of workers AND peasants by definition.
2. The rapid industrialization resulted in the rapid development of cities. The majority of industrial plants, and thus the majority of workers, were concentrated in cities.
3. All bodies of power and governance were naturally concentrated in (larger) cities too.
4. Thus what began as the party of workers AND peasants ended up as the party of workers de facto in the mid 20-s. Nevertheless the majority of population were still peasants.
5. Further, the Bolsheviks cancelled (formally) the right to own any means of production. But they did not intend to cancel private property. Anyone could still save money, collect anything, etc. Which itself resulted in huge disparities even within cities.
6. All that resulted in a huge wave of migration to cities. Even if you could save some money you had practically no possibilities to spend them, if you lived somewhere else.
7. Obviously, peasants were far from being happy (they had never been before). So the Bolsheviks invented the so called ‘collectivization’ for them. That meant cancelling not only right of ownership of means of production and not only private property de facto (dekulakization). What is most striking, that was meant to stop the migration. Because peasants were denied the right to get the passport. Without which they could not even cross the city borders! That resulted in an unprecedented level of enslavement (de facto).
Here is why I say that was the dictatorship of urbanism. And I hope you understand the line of argumentation. You might object that could be something very specific to that certain country in that certain period. I’d say, it has just gotten much worse.
It is very uncomfortable idea, since the majority of us (intellectuals, etc) prefer to live in larger cities. And when we think of a justice, it is always the justice for people like us.

Have you seen ‘Nomadland’? Then you know what I mean.



As I indicated earlier, the *Western* countries had already industrialized, so this wasn't some 'fad' going-around.

Russia and China just had conditions of *duress* imposed on them from without, for *their* periods of industrialization.
#15182108
ckaihatsu wrote:As I indicated earlier, the *Western* countries had already industrialized, so this wasn't some 'fad' going-around.

And I've already indicated it has much more to do with (wild and rapid) urbanization as such than with industrialization.
#15182122
Ivan_R wrote:
And I've already indicated it has much more to do with (wild and rapid) urbanization as such than with industrialization.



It's still a *double standard*, though -- why aren't you taking the West / Allies to-task for *their* (early) modern urbanization and industrialization?
#15182201
Just the opposite. I tend to claim what took place a hundred years ago in Russia is still applicable to any other country and/or culture. Since the process of urbanization is becoming even more critical. Even if now we would rather talk of ‘post-industrial society’.

IMHO, this might be the most fundamental problem with any theory, having ‘-socialism’ in its title. Neither is able to get rid of ‘grouping’ as such. Do you remember how some German theorists tried to prove the advantage of National Socialism over Bolshevism. They told, they were trying to build exactly the same, with only one simple exception. While the stupid Bolsheviks were trying to achieve some mythical ‘justice for all’, the enlightened new Germans believed in justice for a very certain group of Aryans.
They were not right, as you can see now.
#15182203
Ivan_R wrote:
Just the opposite. I tend to claim what took place a hundred years ago in Russia is still applicable to any other country and/or culture.




Sorry, but that's silly.

A robust economy makes the political collapse into a dictatorship a lot less likely.

Culture also plays a role. A bow tie wearing American conservative said, shortly after the end of the USSR, that history and culture would return the country to what we used to call strong man rule. He was correct, although I think if we had helped them enough, it could have been avoided. But we didn't.

Not why I am posting. Things change, eventually we will see a more sophisticated organisational principle. It might look like communism, it might not.

But I'm always looking for a way to create a more perfect union...
#15182216
Ivan_R wrote:
Just the opposite. I tend to claim what took place a hundred years ago in Russia is still applicable to any other country and/or culture. Since the process of urbanization is becoming even more critical. Even if now we would rather talk of ‘post-industrial society’.



Yes, agreed -- though the issue of urbanization / industrialization itself really begs the question of *class* ultimately, because some have to *tend* to the city / industry, while others get to *enjoy* and *benefit* from such labor time and efforts.


Ivan_R wrote:
IMHO, this might be the most fundamental problem with any theory, having ‘-socialism’ in its title. Neither is able to get rid of ‘grouping’ as such. Do you remember how some German theorists tried to prove the advantage of National Socialism over Bolshevism. They told, they were trying to build exactly the same, with only one simple exception. While the stupid Bolsheviks were trying to achieve some mythical ‘justice for all’, the enlightened new Germans believed in justice for a very certain group of Aryans.
They were not right, as you can see now.



I hope you're not insinuating that I need 'convincing' away from the Nazi side of the spectrum -- I've *never* had the slightest political inclination in that direction, nor would I ever associate Nazism with socialism.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show
Image

@JohnRawls I don't see the article that way. Me[…]

Yes @wat0n , my thread on the US covertly agita[…]

July 27, Monday Minor affairs take place near […]

Problem with the quarantine is that it damages the[…]