TUC...Form a new party?

[Zachor]

its always better to join a cult with 'free love' imo and then leave prefbly before they start talking about 'riding meteorites...'

Ha ha ha ha ha. I do like that one. Like someone I know who got in to Christianity because of th epeace and love aspect but decided it was time to leave when it got to the exorcising demons bit.

 

[brasicritique]

aka the sprititual growth and religouds journey of tony blair

 

[dennisr]

I wouldn't say I present voting in elections as "having illusions". Indeed I have voted in elections myself, and I am actually more likely to vote the more local the election is.

In fact in 2003 I was part of a campaign of tactical voting for the Scottish parliament elections. Myself and a group of then colleagues worked out a formula for each area which would allow people to vote in the best way to punish pro-Iraq war candidates. The information was made available on a website, and we were interviewed on Newsnicht.

I was pleased then that the outcome of that election was a Holyrood with increased SSP and Green representation (although we don't take all the credit, obviously), because I hoped that this would mean some benefits for working-class people.

I'm well aware that parliament(s) is/are not irrelevant. However, I do caution against them being seen as a possible vehicle for revolutionary change (ie socialism). I think that's structurally improbable. But, as I've said, there is no reason why social democratic reform cannot take place given the necessary conditions.

fair enough mate. i think its just the way you came across on the thread probably (and understandably...) in pushing the valid point you do about the limitations of parliamentary change

 

[dennisr]

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of it I just feel that revolutions tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Russia would have been a lot better off if it had evolved into social democracy rather than having the Bolsheviks take over.

Again one could argue that the willingness of the old rulers - their determination to hold onto power at any cost - caused the civil war and the bloodshed - when support for their own system only existed in the weopans and armies of the imperial nations (21 armies invaded russia - the red army defeated them) that came to the old ruling classes 'aid'. The people of Russia made their intentions and majority wishes clear - "bread, peace and land.

The reformist social democrats were the ones who refused this to that majority and sections went on to lead and support white armies who tried to drown the initial uprising in blood - the blood is just as much on their 'democratic' hands on hat sense.

And that is also true of virtually all the violent examples of revolutions those in power point to - the old rulers do not give up with out a fight - they drowned the german movement in blood prefering fascist lunatics to democratically loosing power.

I suppose we could argue that we should therefore oppose any attempt by those who are not rulers to improve their lot - but the reality is it will not stop people, they will move anyway. - Therefore I would argue we should push for the most careful (and therefore peaceful) tactics and strategies (push that movement in the best possible direction). That would be the best way to reduce violence.

That movement invariably arises as a consequence of the ruling classes initial actions (because after all - "they started it" - those at the bottom of the pile rarely start a revolution but they inevitably try and finish it.

The collectivisation of farms in the Soviet Union was not a tested idea and was imposed at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

We probably all agree on that - there's not many old tankie apologists who would dare to raise their heads and say otherwise nowadays. I would argue though that the collectivisation (and the ability to impose it) was the consequense of the defeat - a massive stepping back - of the original russian revolution. The "10 days that shook the world" resulted in virtually no loss of life. But a revolution, isolated in an economically and socially backward country with no history or experience of even limited 'democracy', largely illiterate etc. could not survive in isolation for ever

 

[dennisr]

I shall try to expand.

The desire for (usually violent) revolution on the part of many socialists is very similar to the desire by Christians for a (usually violent) return of their Messiah.

its a bit of a false analogy - and a common one in also equating religion and political/social movements. There is an element of truth - one that reflects human nature. Yes angry people who feel someone else's boot on their neck can react violently. it is understandable if not 'right' (if we can put moral judgements on these folk)

I don't think most people want violence - and even those fools that talk the rhetoric rarely like the actual consequenses.

Serge took up the idea of the corruption of even 'revolutionary violence' (carried out in what is seen as 'out of necessity' in defense of a revolutionary movement in retreat) - corruption of perpetrators as well as victims. There are many examples of the opposite behaviour as well - The Nicaraguan Sandinistas are an example of folk who tried not to 'become like those you detest' - with their open rehabilitation prisons for the old Smoza torturers etc.

I think the world we live in - at least in the democratic capitalist countries - is very different from Russia in 1917. The people who would carry out any revolutionary movement would have decades of collective experience and knowledge that the folk of 1917 russia never had.

 

[dennisr]

damn we are back to talking about dead russkies with beards again...

 

[In Bloom]

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of it I just feel that revolutions tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Russia would have been a lot better off if it had evolved into social democracy rather than having the Bolsheviks take over.

The ideas of the A of E were tested in debate not imposed by the barrel of a gun. We accept ideas of equality and democracy and the right to criticise but it came about because these ideas were tested and found to be beneficial.

The collectivisation of farms in the Soviet Union was not a tested idea and was imposed at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

What utter fucking nonsense. The "Enlightenment" was characterised by a period of violent political and social upheaval.

Do you think that 18th century French noblemen went around cutting their own fucking heads off or something?

 

[Zachor]

What utter fucking nonsense. The "Enlightenment" was characterised by a period of violent political and social upheaval.

Do you think that 18th century French noblemen went around cutting their own fucking heads off or something?

There were violent revolutions within the A o E but it was primarily a shift in ways of thinking.

 

[nino_savatte]

There were violent revolutions within the A o E but it was primarily a shift in ways of thinking.

A shift in thinking is revolutionary.

 

[Spion]

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of it I just feel that revolutions tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Russia would have been a lot better off if it had evolved into social democracy rather than having the Bolsheviks take over.

Social democracy achieved power in Feb 1917. The mass of Russians didn't care for its inability to provide for their needs, so they started doing their own thing. The Bolsheviks rode that wave. Social democracy is a fundamentally a utopian idea.