Russia invades Ukraine

[Travis B.]

The reason I support market economies personally is that, of all the systems that have been tried, to be completely honest they have worked the best, even for all their failings - planned economies just have not been able to function as well as complete systems, as shown by the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, Venezuela, etc. But I do not assign any magical quality to money - money, as you say, is really a means to provide liquidity in order for the economy to practically function. And while alternatives to money have been proposed, such as labor vouchers, those ignore the fact that so much of the economy exists outside of the realm of consumer goods, known as the "business-to-business" portion of the economy in the capitalist world. Some means of managing the distribution of products used and consumed by businesses themselves is still needed, and resorting to some sort of central planning to manage this simply will not work in practice.

A command economy by vote is not the same as a Five Year Plan, capitalist Russia was worse than the Soviet Union in every way, First World prosperity depends on Third World exploitation, etc.

The reason why capitalist Russia has been worse than the Soviet Union is that the whole command economy of the Soviet Union was essentially liquidated when the Soviet Union collapsed, so even though the command economy of the Soviet Union was less efficient than the Western capitalist economy, it still provided things such as jobs to the workers, which went away when the whole thing was liquidated.

[rotting bones]

The reason why capitalist Russia has been worse than the Soviet Union is that the whole command economy of the Soviet Union was essentially liquidated when the Soviet Union collapsed, so even though the command economy of the Soviet Union was less efficient than the Western capitalist economy, it still provided things such as jobs to the workers, which went away when the whole thing was liquidated.

It still sucked 28 years later. If a Marxist movement took 3 decades to fix an economy, capitalists would cite that as proof of the failure of Marxism.

[Travis B.]

I was speaking from the perspective of a socialist in the First World. To me, the big problem with revolution is that for a revolution to be truly successful, it cannot happen in one country but must encompass a good swath of the globe if not the world as a whole, and bringing that about is even harder than simply starting a revolution in any single country. Any socialist revolution in a single country will be economically isolated, which will hamper its viability, especially if the country is a small country or has limited natural resources, and will invite outside intervention, overt or covert, by capitalist countries in order to crush the revolution, which can only be stymied if a larger socialist bloc comes into being (and even that is no guarantee, as one can see from the case of Chile under Allende or Nicaragua under the Sandinistas).

"Civilization" AKA unqualified barbarism it is, then.

For any socialist revolution to survive in the long term, the revolution needs to be exported as far as possible to enable the creation of a greater socialist economy, to limit the effect of being encircled by capitalist countries, and to create a greater socialist bloc that can effectively resist the efforts of capitalist countries to crush it. Of course, the capitalists will realize this too, and thus will double their efforts to crush or at least isolate socialism before it spreads.

[rotting bones]

For any socialist revolution to survive in the long term, the revolution needs to be exported as far as possible to enable the creation of a greater socialist economy, to limit the effect of being encircled by capitalist countries, and to create a greater socialist bloc that can effectively resist the efforts of capitalist countries to crush it. Of course, the capitalists will realize this too, and thus will double their efforts to crush or at least isolate socialism before it spreads.

If market socialism tries to challenge the power of capital, then it may not be immune to similar effects. Besides, if the people can't wrench the economy back into balance by vote, then capitalists will always be able to win elections.

Note that, "If you do X, they'll kill you," is not an argument against the effectiveness of X when the attackers are the ones saying it. Neither is it the kind of thing that dissuades desperate people.

[keenir]

but things such as encouraging Russian troops in Ukraine to surrender or desert rather than to fight against fellow members of the working class

we'd probably have to hope (or take measures against) retaliation & reprisals aren't enacted against the troops' families if and when they do that.

Fascist "theory" has always been a form of advertising that dupes its buyers into sacrificing their lives for bullies who oppress them. (As is, I'd argue, the populist view of "civilization" in general.)

Populist?
Are we back to where you seemed to be saying that everything is oppression?

"Civilization" AKA unqualified barbarism it is, then.

was afraid of that.

[Travis B.]

For any socialist revolution to survive in the long term, the revolution needs to be exported as far as possible to enable the creation of a greater socialist economy, to limit the effect of being encircled by capitalist countries, and to create a greater socialist bloc that can effectively resist the efforts of capitalist countries to crush it. Of course, the capitalists will realize this too, and thus will double their efforts to crush or at least isolate socialism before it spreads.

If market socialism tries to challenge the power of capital, then it may not be immune to similar effects. Besides, if the people can't wrench the economy back into balance by vote, then capitalists will always be able to win elections.

Note that, "If you do X, they'll kill you," is not an argument against the effectiveness of X when the attackers are the ones saying it. Neither is it the kind of thing that dissuades desperate people.

I was just pointing out that socialist revolution is very hard to pull off successfully in the long term, not that it should not be carried out. Back when I was the kind of anarchist who read about things like anarchist Catalonia and Ukraine, I expected that any anarchist revolution would be immediately faced with both civil and international war, with the capitalist nations of the world aligning to stomp it out and local capitalists even inviting foreign armies onto one's territory to do so, but that never made me think that anarchist revolution should not be carried out.

[rotting bones]

Populist?
Are we back to where you seemed to be saying that everything is oppression?

...

was afraid of that.

You wrote some words, but why you wrote them is beyond me. I'm clearly saying that socialism isn't oppression.

[rotting bones]

I was just pointing out that socialist revolution is very hard to pull off successfully in the long term, not that it should not be carried out. Back when I was the kind of anarchist who read about things like anarchist Catalonia and Ukraine, I expected that any anarchist revolution would be immediately faced with both civil and international war, with the capitalist nations of the world aligning to stomp it out and local capitalists even inviting foreign armies onto one's territory to do so, but that never made me think that anarchist revolution should not be carried out.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I thought you were saying that advocating revolution is like ineffectually peddling one's party newspaper on the street corners. I'm saying that dangers like capitalist encirclement are unlikely to dissuade people if they get desperate enough. If enough countries join the revolution, even the First World could feel economic shocks that will increase revolutionary sentiment there.

Not that I'm saying incrementalism should be opposed. Honestly, I'm not convinced that socialism can't be achieved through incremental progress when fascism can clearly be achieved through incremental regress.

[Travis B.]

I was just pointing out that socialist revolution is very hard to pull off successfully in the long term, not that it should not be carried out. Back when I was the kind of anarchist who read about things like anarchist Catalonia and Ukraine, I expected that any anarchist revolution would be immediately faced with both civil and international war, with the capitalist nations of the world aligning to stomp it out and local capitalists even inviting foreign armies onto one's territory to do so, but that never made me think that anarchist revolution should not be carried out.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I thought you were saying that advocating revolution is like ineffectually peddling one's party newspaper on the street corners. I'm saying that dangers like capitalist encirclement are unlikely to dissuade people if they get desperate enough. If enough countries join the revolution, even the First World could feel economic shocks that will increase revolutionary sentiment there.

Not that I'm saying incrementalism should be opposed. Honestly, I'm not convinced that socialism can't be achieved through incremental progress when fascism can clearly be achieved through incremental regress.

My comment about ineffectually peddling one's party's newspaper on street corners was about how empty ideological agitation in First World countries does not accomplish much in and of itself compared to seeking incremental goals with real concrete benefits now. Saying you are for world revolution as much as you want to people will not bring that revolution any closer, and rather will likely annoy people and thus delay rather than hasten it. That does not mean that spreading socialist ideas is a bad idea, but that should be done as part of agitating for incremental goals — if people see you actually doing things, they might be interested in your ideas and thus getting involved in incremental goals may help give socialist goals an audience that it might not have, in a way that attracts rather than repels peole.

[rotting bones]

My comment about ineffectually peddling one's party's newspaper on street corners was about how empty ideological agitation in First World countries does not accomplish much in and of itself compared to seeking incremental goals with real concrete benefits now. Saying you are for world revolution as much as you want to people will not bring that revolution any closer, and rather will likely annoy people and thus delay rather than hasten it. That does not mean that spreading socialist ideas is a bad idea, but that should be done as part of agitating for incremental goals — if people see you actually doing things, they might be interested in your ideas and thus getting involved in incremental goals may help give socialist goals an audience that it might not have, in a way that attracts rather than repels peole.

I agree with most of what you said, but are you sure that First World people are dead set against revolution? Many Americans expressed economic goals while voting for Trump. Some of those goals could be fulfilled under democratic socialism.

[Travis B.]

My comment about ineffectually peddling one's party's newspaper on street corners was about how empty ideological agitation in First World countries does not accomplish much in and of itself compared to seeking incremental goals with real concrete benefits now. Saying you are for world revolution as much as you want to people will not bring that revolution any closer, and rather will likely annoy people and thus delay rather than hasten it. That does not mean that spreading socialist ideas is a bad idea, but that should be done as part of agitating for incremental goals — if people see you actually doing things, they might be interested in your ideas and thus getting involved in incremental goals may help give socialist goals an audience that it might not have, in a way that attracts rather than repels peole.

I agree with most of what you said, but are you sure that First World people are dead set against revolution? Many Americans expressed economic goals while voting for Trump. Some of those goals could be fulfilled under democratic socialism.

The key thing is to seek concrete, achievable goals, rather than teh Revolution — rather than framing things in revolutionary terms, i.e. seeking to "immanentize the Eschaton" as they say, instead tell people what democratic socialism is for in terms they will understand and see as doable rather than in terms they will see as unlikely or impossible. Take worker ownership and self-management of capital for instance — this could be approached in terms of telling people that you want to shift the economy to being one based on worker cooperatives, rather than telling people you want the working class to rise up and seize the means of production.

[rotting bones]

The key thing is to seek concrete, achievable goals, rather than teh Revolution — rather than framing things in revolutionary terms, i.e. seeking to "immanentize the Eschaton" as they say, instead tell people what democratic socialism is for in terms they will understand and see as doable rather than in terms they will see as unlikely or impossible. Take worker ownership and self-management of capital for instance — this could be approached in terms of telling people that you want to shift the economy to being one based on worker cooperatives, rather than telling people you want the working class to rise up and seize the means of production.

That makes sense. In a way, when Marx was writing, the working class had actually risen up and seized the means of production to establish the Paris Commune: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Com ... early_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Com ... _of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Com ... _and_Lenin

[keenir]

Populist?
Are we back to where you seemed to be saying that everything is oppression?

...

was afraid of that.

You wrote some words, but why you wrote them is beyond me.

because you aren't the easiest person to understand (nor am i, but i own that)...so i'm asking for clarification.

I'm clearly saying that socialism isn't oppression.

so...everything but socialism is oppression? or were you being facetious?

[rotting bones]

because you aren't the easiest person to understand (nor am i, but i own that)...so i'm asking for clarification.

I thought you were settling your question in the affirmative.

I was saying that fascism is oppression.

so...everything but socialism is oppression? or were you being facetious?

I was giving one exception to what I saw as your claim that I think all things are oppression. I can give many other examples, including hats, printers and birds. None of these things are oppression.

[keenir]

so...everything but socialism is oppression? or were you being facetious?

I was giving one exception to what I saw as your claim that I think all things are oppression. I can give many other examples, including hats, printers and birds. None of these things are oppression.

its not my claim - I read it in your posts back in that other thread.

[rotting bones]

its not my claim - I read it in your posts back in that other thread.

IIRC I said that revolution is natural for social existence under a master-slave relation. Please demonstrate that all things fall under the umbrella of social existence under a master-slave relation.

[hwhatting]

capitalist Russia was worse than the Soviet Union in every way,

Oh, nope. I'd rather say that the 1930s Soviet Union was a worse place to live, at least*1) if you were a farmer or herder (then still the vast majority of people) than any time in Tsarist Russia at least after the abolition of serfdom. I said it before, Capitalist countries achieved the transition to industrialisation with a lot less death and starvation than the USSR.
Don't get me wrong - I think that Tsarist Russia was a pretty oppressive and unequal country with a lot of problems, I just think that Leninism was a catastrophic (and vastly more oppressive) solution to those problems. It's a pity that we'll never know what Russia would have looked like if the Leninists hadn't taken over from socialists like the Mensheviks. who were ready to work in a democratic framework.

*1) Not talking about the bourgeoisie here, I assume for a Marxist they're supposed to do worse in a Communist system anyway.

[hwhatting]

The reason why capitalist Russia has been worse than the Soviet Union is that the whole command economy of the Soviet Union was essentially liquidated when the Soviet Union collapsed, so even though the command economy of the Soviet Union was less efficient than the Western capitalist economy, it still provided things such as jobs to the workers, which went away when the whole thing was liquidated.

It still sucked 28 years later. If a Marxist movement took 3 decades to fix an economy, capitalists would cite that as proof of the failure of Marxism.

Well, on a certain level, everything sucks. Have you ever been to Russia? I've been there and lived in several successor states of the USSR. The ecocnomic crisis in the sense of shortages was sorted out in 5-6 years, except for those countries (like Uzbekistan) that reformed their economy least; after that, living standards rose and in all countries where there are / were democratic elections (which includes Russia until the early 2000s), the Communist parties or their successors polled 15-20% of the vote, max. So even if things suck, the majority of people who can compare the systems still seem to think they suck less than under the Soviet system.

[zompist]

capitalist Russia was worse than the Soviet Union in every way,

Oh, nope. I'd rather say that the 1930s Soviet Union was a worse place to live, at least*1) if you were a farmer or herder (then still the vast majority of people) than any time in Tsarist Russia at least after the abolition of serfdom. I said it before, Capitalist countries achieved the transition to industrialisation with a lot less death and starvation than the USSR.
Don't get me wrong - I think that Tsarist Russia was a pretty oppressive and unequal country with a lot of problems, I just think that Leninism was a catastrophic (and vastly more oppressive) solution to those problems. It's a pity that we'll never know what Russia would have looked like if the Leninists hadn't taken over from socialists like the Mensheviks. who were ready to work in a democratic framework.

I think this is a bit facile...a lot depends on which endpoints you use. Was the 1932 USSR worse than the 1913 Empire? Probably. Was the 1928 USSR worse than the 1917 Empire? Probably not.

1917 was a very complex year in Russia, but surely the place to start is the complete failure of the tsarist system. They were losing the war, they were not feeding the population, the army, workers, and peasants were revolting, and the tsar was utterly incapable of understanding, much less resolving the crisis. You can't really say that tsarist Russia was doing pretty well with the transformations of capitalism when it fell apart in a serious crisis-- you can't just hope that a system doesn't ever run into a crisis. And 1917 wasn't an anomaly; its performance in 1905 was almost as much of a disaster.

The single biggest question was what to do with the war. Kerensky discredited himself by pretending that it was possible to continue the war and go back on the offense, and then by his association with Kornilov. The Bolsheviks kept increasing in popularity largely because they kept to their policy of leaving the war at all costs. Lenin just had the terrible luck of signing a humiliating treaty with the power that lost the war six months later.

Capitalism also looks much better if you look at the entire period 1917-1989. But more than half of this period-- 1945-89-- really shows the superiority of social democracy vs authoritative communism, not capitalism simply. If we look at 1917-1939, the comparison is far less clear. For a large part of that period, capitalism seemed like it was running a poor third economically behind communism and fascism. Some of this was a bit illusory (Germany and Russia were doing better because they had started out devastated), but laissez-faire capitalism really is a pretty bad system.

China complicates the picture too: during the 1950s, the PRC did way better than the Nationalists ever had, to say nothing of the empire. If Mao had dropped dead in 1958, it might have continued its progress.

[hwhatting]

I think this is a bit facile...a lot depends on which endpoints you use. Was the 1932 USSR worse than the 1913 Empire? Probably. Was the 1928 USSR worse than the 1917 Empire? Probably not.

Well, I don't think it was more facile than the statement to which I responded. My point was twofold - what are we comparing? The more you go into details and compare different periods, the more nuanced the picture. (One part why 1928 was better than 1933 was the years before had been less oppressive and the NEP had allowed more elements of markets and private investments. It was better because there was more balance*) and less unalloyed state ownership and central planning, there was also private ownership of farms**), and also less Totalitarianism). The other thing is that we don't know what a Russia that was a liberal democracy or socialist democracy would have looked like in the 1950s or 1960s, if it had the chance to go down that road - say, if the Mensheviks would have have had the wisdom and courage to leave the war. Im quite convinced it would have looked better than the Soviet Union. But that's alternative history. No doubt that Russia in 1917 was a mess, and we all know the concatenation of events that led to the Bolshevik takeover, but that it led to a takeover by that specific brand of Socialism was a missed chance and a wrong turn, not a triumph.

*) IIRC I said it somewhere here before, but I think that it's better if a system doesn't allow to much concentraton of power and if it has different types of coordination mechanisms. Politically, of course, power was concentrated in the hands of the Bolsheviks even during the NEP, but economically and socially, they allowed for more variety.
**) Arguably the biggest mistake economically that both China and Russia made is moving from distributing land from feudal landowners to farmers (creating buy-in for the system and incentives to produce) to forced collectivisation (destroying the buy-in and leading to neglect and shortages).