The theoretical basis for the triumph of communism

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
@Kid & Comrade Snuggles (I can't believe you choose that, Zombie Lenin is waaay better):

Power to the people, baby! The masses spoke, and they wanted Comrade Snuggles . . . though they might have gone with Chequita Guevara if I had let it be known I would have changed to that.

So when did the Russian revolution go wrong?

You can't point to any one specific point, here is the point of no return. It was many little things that eventually overwhelmed it. The first mistake was probably letting the counter-revolutionaries go free on their honor they wouldn't organize another counter-revolution.

Probably the failure of the German revolutions contributed more than anything else to the rise of Stalinism in the communist movement. Combined with the massive destruction and depopulation of the cities caused by the civil war, without socialist manufactured goods from from a Soviet Germany, a bureaucracy was necessary to coordinate the reconstruction of Russia (soon to be the USSR) and the distribution of scarce resources. You simply cannot build socialism in one country.

Could the USSR have been any better than it was?

If everything had happened the same way, but Stalin was of a different character, the USSR probably could have done without the 1932-4 famine, the purges, etc. It's possible Hitler might not even have been able to take power, since his rise was partly because of the German Communist Party's, Moscow ordered anti-Socialist politics. If the Socialists and Communists united to fight fascism, rather than fought each other, maybe, just maybe, but this is all speculation.

If Trotsky were the leader, it would have been a whole 'nother ball of wax. I'm not suggesting Trotsky was more devoted to democracy. One need merely look at the parties that bear his name to be disabused of that idea, but the USSR would have put more resources into spreading the revolution, instead of turning foreign communist parties into organizations to further the policy of the USSR. Again, nothing but speculation.

I hope you can both agree that Stalinism was nothing but a national socialism.

It wasn't national socialism, but it bears the same relationship to socialism that fascism bears to capitalism. The ruling class still benefits from ownership of its property, but political control is in the hands of an alien class (the middle class).

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The theoretical basis for the triumph of communism

Originally posted by BeBro
Ahh, it's not democracy now since the "absolute rule of an entire class, one that happens to make up the majority of the population" isn't enough to speak of democracy. Otoh in ancient Athens it certainly was, since they could just "define some humans as not being part of "the people"" and still were democratic.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. If I interpret you correctly, you're trying to say that I said that if the majority have absolute rule, it's not a democracy, even though I'd written a little ways down that a democracy only means the rule of the people, and the people can be defined as widely or as narrowly as society wants. So you're attempting to show that I'm confused.

Except I never said anything about the dictatorship of the proletariat not being a democracy. I was simply pointing out that the word "dictatorship" has to be considered in context.

Or are you trying to say that capitalist democracy exists, because the only people who really count are the capitalists?

[Kidlicious]

Russia was too nationalistic, also the US militarism had something to do with it.

But Che knows much more than I do on this subject.