|
Joker
Sinn Fein
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Rainy wrote: |
Most of the money they use comes from private sources.
VMSmith: A democracy can fail for multiple reasons. What I gave was one of the more general and common flaws. |
Two to tango. Two for corruption: the briber and the bribee.
And the money is in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.
ruveyn |
I agree with ruveyn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joker wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | Rainy wrote: |
Most of the money they use comes from private sources.
VMSmith: A democracy can fail for multiple reasons. What I gave was one of the more general and common flaws. |
Two to tango. Two for corruption: the briber and the bribee.
And the money is in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.
ruveyn |
I agree with ruveyn. |
are you sure?
_________________
Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
Joker
Sinn Fein
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | Joker wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | Rainy wrote: |
Most of the money they use comes from private sources.
VMSmith: A democracy can fail for multiple reasons. What I gave was one of the more general and common flaws. |
Two to tango. Two for corruption: the briber and the bribee.
And the money is in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.
ruveyn |
I agree with ruveyn. |
are you sure? |
He makes the most sense 99.99% of the time so yes I am sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
VMSmith
a figment of my own imagination
Joined: Apr 18, 2011
Age: 21
Posts: 2674
Location: the old country
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AstroGeek wrote: | Well, the reason that I abandoned this thread is because I really didn't feel like dealing with ruveyn and TM.
I am not a revolutionary for the simple reason that I think overthrowing the government does not work. It's been tried and has had horrible results. If by a revolution you mean a period of rapid change, I also disagree with that because rapid change is difficult and tends to create problems. I wish that rapid change could work, because I'm impatient, but I don't believe that it can.
All of that said, I am not a social democrat. Universal healthcare and free education are of course important to socialism, but are only a small part of it. I do believe in collective ownership and economic democracy. I believe that major industries should be nationalized over a period of 10-20 years or so. Or, as the case may be, renationalized since many of them were publicly owned before the '80s. I strongly support cooperatives, both workers and consumers'. I think that credit unions are a great idea, as are insurance cooperatives. And there is a cooperative grocery store chain in my region that I'd shop at if there was one within walking distance (I don't own a car)--mind you, they are slowly going out of business because the bigger chains have lower overhead.
I think that perhaps the best thing a socialist could do is encourage the formation of new cooperatives. By and large nationalization is a dead policy (although Iceland showed some real guts in nationalizing their banks that failed) and is not likely to be resurrected for a few decades.
I agree that we have yet to see a socialist country. Parts of Europe were making excellent steps in that direction before Thatcher and her ilk came along. And Chile might have become socialist if the USA hadn't sabotaged their economy and helped to overthrow Salvador Allende. Venezuela may become socialist under Chavez, but I'm wary of him; he doesn't seem adverse to cheating in the democratic process. I'm somewhat more optimistic about Evo Morales in Bolivia. Of the original "Communist" countries, only Cuba has a chance of becoming socialist in the foreseeable future. There are some reforms being made which are good first steps towards becoming democratic (although there is still a long, long way to go) and the economic reforms don't sound like they'll revert it to capitalism, like happened in China. |
i didnt get involved in the thread earlier for the same reason. i figured that might have detered some left wingers too.
marxists think a revolution is necessary to gain collective ownership and democracy- i dont think the bosses are just going to let workers take collective control over their work place no matter how much the population wants it or how wide mass support is reflected in polls or whatever. i think that bit about allende is a good example. this leftist reformist promises radical reforms for workers(including socialism) & the the bosses get uneasy & in 1973 Pinochet launches a military coup with the support of the bosses & cia and they off him & crush the workers movement. plus how long would it have been before he started shifting to the side of the bosses in the name of keeping the economy healthy?
cooperatives ive got nothing especially against but as a means of changing society, well, i dont see how they can. theyre still a buisiness and still have to exist in the capitalist market and will still fail unless they compete with other buisinesses. and it still leaves you with a government that you have to deal with.
marxists think revolution is necessary because it empowers the working class and teaches them something about their own power as a collective & it teaches them how to organise. plus i think it was eugene debs who said " if I could do it(emancipate the working class) for you somebody else could undo it for you. But, when you do it yourselves, it will be done for ever" ie. revolution not reformism. im adverse to one person giving the working class socialism- its supposed to be about workers power.
as for rapid change, if you are going to go for a bottom up approach then that is how it will happen. the class stuggle doesnt happen at a steady pace and im not sure that people "plan" revolutions. workers dont all radicalise at the same rate and there might be times when you can win many over to socialist politics and other times when the word socialism will get the "oh thats a nice idea, its so nice you havent lost that idealistic streak yet" reaction from people instead of "f@#$ the bosses". i think it is important that they have the right politics. that being said a revolution is a while off because people take time to radicalise.
also i still think cuba is state capitalist, it never was socialist and i dont think revolution has been proven to fail. when they do fail there are reasons but that would take too long to go into & this is already longer than the international law essay i was supposed to be writting but am procrastinating on. again. because its total bollocks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
@VMSmith: Now this is the kind of conversation that I was hoping we could have in this thread. For certain things cooperatives can successfully compete with other businesses. I'm thinking of credit unions here--1/3 of Canadians use them for their banking. My point about cooperatives is that as of yet there is not the wide-spread support that would be needed for nationalization or other drastic reforms. So I think that a better approach would be for those socialists to form a cooperative for themselves without the intention of competing per se. For example, a housing cooperative doesn't need to compete with apartment buildings if all of the tenants are ideologically in favour of the cooperative. These cooperatives would work as a good platform from which to recruit potential socialists and may act to bring in the desire for the more radical changes that you describe.
I also see cooperatives as useful because they are done from the bottom up. Tenants banding together to buy out their landlord involves them far more in the changes than some far-off president nationalizing the apartment complex. We both support grass-roots mobilization, we just approach it from different angles. I also talk of cooperatives because they are something which can be done now, while the revolution you speak of, if it could ever happen, is decades away. Except, perhaps, in places like Greece--you might be able to mobilize something there.
I agree that Cuba is not socialist right now, nor has it ever been. I think that state-capitalism is a good term for all of the old Soviet-style communist countries. However, Cuba probably is/was among the least terrible of those countries (hardly and inspiring slogan). My point was simply that it is conceivable that it will one day become socialist. There are some faint beginnings, such as the development of their urban agriculture system. That essentially happened because people needed food and decided to take over unused land to grow it. The government was smart enough to recognise a good idea and threw its support behind them. But it was essentially a grass-roots movement.
On an unrelated topic, do you read Green Left Weekly? I did for a couple of weeks but was turned away by how uncritical they were of the Cuban government, among other things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kjas
Onçinha
Joined: Feb 27, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 4879
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can certainly agree when it comes to nationalization of resources, I think that is cruical to any countries economic and political sovereignty. Certain countries are making strides in that direction, and with good reason. (Bolivia, Ecador and Agrentina being current examples)
Cuba is not really ever going to be a good example because they face too many other issues that muddy the waters politically (and econiomically), for there ever to any agreement on the issue, even amongst lefties in general. Those "other issues" is what made it necessary for the "state capitalism" (as you're going to call it), to be put in place in the first place. Until the political dynamics of that particular region change (you all know what I'm talking about), we will not know whether grassroots socialism could be successful there or not. Currently that "state capitalism" is the only thing stopping Cuba becoming a virtual colony of the US (again). Until that threat is removed, we are never going to know one way or the other what would or will be successful there
I have read green left and still do, along witht the guardian weekly and a few others. The trick with any source of media is learning to read between the line and tranlsate correctly, because none of them are ever going to be truly objective since they all have their agendas.
_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kjas wrote: | | I can certainly agree when it comes to nationalization of resources, I think that is cruical to any countries economic and political sovereignty. Certain countries are making strides in that direction, and with good reason. (Bolivia, Ecador and Agrentina being current examples) |
Canada on the other hand is selling our resources to other countries' state-owned corporations. Sinopec and Statoil are the main examples. I think I might have heard that the Cuban oil company will be investing too. Cuba will require a security review (fair enough) but for some reason China (which is far more dangerous) has never needed one.
| Quote: | | I have read green left and still do, along witht the guardian weekly and a few others. The trick with any source of media is learning to read between the line and tranlsate correctly, because none of them are ever going to be truly objective since they all have their agendas. |
I like the Guardian--I read it occasionally when I see a copy in my university library. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chipshorter
Velociraptor
Joined: Jan 17, 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 477
Location: The Georgian Quarter of The Pool of Life, The Centre of The Creative Universe
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: Calling all marxists |
|
|
| EnterThePit wrote: | Are you a marxist, socialist, or communist?
do you think capitalism is the greatest evil (more so the religion)?
talk about it here.
Liberals are welcome.
I'm personally a democratic socialist.  |
Yes am a socialist (centre-left political), my city Liverpool has a rich history in the socialist and communist movements.
Most Scousers have no love for right wing politics! My philosophy on socialism can be best summed up with this quotation from a former manager of the football team I support.
| Bill Shankly wrote: | | The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That's how I see football, that's how I see life. |
I wouldn't say capitalism is evil, its amoral and we on the left need to be critical of capitalist systems.
With the rise of globalization, wound it be fair to say that the corporation is the new opiate of the masses?
_________________
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. --Potter Stewart
Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. --Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: Calling all marxists |
|
|
| Chipshorter wrote: | | With the rise of globalization, wound it be fair to say that the corporation is the new opiate of the masses? |
I'd say that the new opiate of the masses is individualism. I'm all for individual rights, but the sort of individualism seen in the USA and in the slogans of right-wing organizations is ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
VMSmith
a figment of my own imagination
Joined: Apr 18, 2011
Age: 21
Posts: 2674
Location: the old country
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
astrogeek:
you mean this green left weekly:
www.greenleft.org.au ?
no not really. i mean sometimes i do but only to see how messed up their politics are(theyre affiliated with socialist alliance) or what they say about us. us being socialist alternative(we're cliffites/trotskyists) who put out this magazine which i read regularly:
sa.org.au
im a member of the organisation. we criticise the alliance over their stance on cuba, vietnam/vcp, reformism, attitude towards the cops, stalinism, etc but we still work with them in various campaigns and stuff.
grassroots stuff is great and we do both want that but you seem to be going more for reforms which is great and i want that too, theyre something you can work for in the immediate sense but ultimately revolution is the way to go if you want those reforms to stick. but yeah thats a while off and to be any good it'll need to be in more than one country.
on cooperatives competing, thats what i mean about working under the capitalist system(well one of the things). competition in the market makes it somewhat unstable and crisis prone plus to compete buisinesses would have to increase productivity to increase profits and you'd end up exploiting yourself to survive in the capitalist system if you were producing things that is. ben and jerrys- the icecream- was an example of this. housing cooperatives do seem to work. i guess they wouldnt have to compete as much but i struggle to think of things where you wouldnt need to. im not entirely sure the ones i know of are independant- they are linked to universities but student run. to be honest i dont know all that much about credit unions so i cant really say much.
i think the most useful thing our leaders can do is nationalise things. its not exactly grassroots but its better than having assets privatised. privatisation just means that companies will be the only ones benifiting from the buisiness, their explicitly for profit only, plus there is less accountability. not that the government is the best boss you can have. and they totally are for privatisation- big buisiness all the way.
i should stop posting at 1am on uni days. you could totally say a lot on individualism. someone else can do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VMSmith wrote: | you mean this green left weekly:
www.greenleft.org.au ?
no not really. i mean sometimes i do but only to see how messed up their politics are(theyre affiliated with socialist alliance) or what they say about us. us being socialist alternative(we're cliffites/trotskyists) who put out this magazine which i read regularly:
sa.org.au
im a member of the organisation. we criticise the alliance over their stance on cuba, vietnam/vcp, reformism, attitude towards the cops, stalinism, etc but we still work with them in various campaigns and stuff. |
Yes, that's the one. Some of their pieces are fine, but I really don't trust a new source that praises the Castros. What do you mean the Socialist Alliance's attitude towards the cops? I understand what you're saying in your other criticisms but I'm not familiar enough with Australia.
And I know that the Socialist Alternative doesn't like them, but were I in Australia I'd probably be a member of the Greens. I'd be in the party's left wing to be sure, but I still think that they'd offer the best fit for me. Also, they're in a position where they can have some moderate short term impact, especially with regards to climate change and other environmental issues.
| Quote: | | grassroots stuff is great and we do both want that but you seem to be going more for reforms which is great and i want that too, theyre something you can work for in the immediate sense but ultimately revolution is the way to go if you want those reforms to stick. but yeah thats a while off and to be any good it'll need to be in more than one country. |
My problem with revolutions is that so often they become violent. I mean, look at all of the people who got killed in the previous "socialist" revolutions. And in the American Revolution. And in the French Revolution. Being a pacifist I find that difficult to excuse. Also, my dad is the owner of a medium sized business, and although I disagree with his politics he is not a bad person. But being a business owner he'd be put at risk in a revolution. Another problem that I have with the hard-line left is that they to demonise the capitalist class. I disagree with the class' existence, but I think that by and large those making it up aren't bad people. They often believe that they are doing good for society and in any case they are a product of the system in which they were raised.
| Quote: | | on cooperatives competing, thats what i mean about working under the capitalist system(well one of the things). competition in the market makes it somewhat unstable and crisis prone plus to compete buisinesses would have to increase productivity to increase profits and you'd end up exploiting yourself to survive in the capitalist system if you were producing things that is. ben and jerrys- the icecream- was an example of this. housing cooperatives do seem to work. i guess they wouldnt have to compete as much but i struggle to think of things where you wouldnt need to. im not entirely sure the ones i know of are independant- they are linked to universities but student run. to be honest i dont know all that much about credit unions so i cant really say much. |
Interestingly, there is a dairy cooperative that produces one of the major brands where I live. It's only a regional brand so you wouldn't recognise it. But all of the ice cream parlours use it and its the brand that my family usually buys. I agree that there are problems with cooperatives, but I'm thinking in a practical sense. There isn't the will for the radical changes that you call for so right now I think that effort would be better expended setting up cooperatives because that's one of the few things that can be done.
I don't think that housing cooperatives are that common. I think that some upscale apartment buildings are cooperative in New York. And I know that there are some cooperatives in Toronto. A project in the UK that you might find interesting is a green housing cooperative.
Credit unions have been highly successful in Canada. They aren't quite at the level of socialism that you'd like, I don't think, but they're still a huge improvement over banks. They tend to be small, with branches only spread over local or regional areas. But they have a sort of alliance so that you can get money out of another credit union's bank machine without being charged extra. The value of service varies from credit union to credit union, with some not much better than private banks and others offering superb deals. But any profits that aren't being reinvested will go to the members as dividends. And of course members vote to control policy. I'll switch to one sooner or later, but for some reason their student plans aren't as good as the ones at private banks.
| Quote: | | i think the most useful thing our leaders can do is nationalise things. its not exactly grassroots but its better than having assets privatised. privatisation just means that companies will be the only ones benifiting from the buisiness, their explicitly for profit only, plus there is less accountability. not that the government is the best boss you can have. and they totally are for privatisation- big buisiness all the way. |
I don't disagree with the idea of nationalisation, far from it. And I highly oppose any privatisation. I do advocate nationalisation, but I'm being realistic. It's not on the public consciousness yet and hardly any parties have the stomach to advocate it. I'll do my part to get it back into the public conscious but until then I'll try to make do with what I've got.
I don't think that there will ever be a revolution in the violent sense. Right now people's lives are, for the most part, too comfortable for them to them to want something that drastic. In 30 or 40 years I think that things will be a lot less comfortable and maybe there could be then. But my perspective does tend to be based off of Canada, and Canadians are horribly passive about things that they don't like. The most that I can see happening is people getting behind a radical political party. Maybe other places would be different. But right now I think that people will just look at you strangely when you talk of revolution--you'll have more luck getting through to them if, for the time being at least, you advocate something a bit more moderate.
Last edited by AstroGeek on Sun May 06, 2012 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AstroGeek wrote: |
I don't think that there will ever be a revolution in the violent sense. Right now people's lives are, for the most part, too comfortable for them to them to want something that drastic. In 30 or 40 years I think that things will be a lot less comfortable and maybe there could be then. But my perspective does tend to be based off of Canada, and Canadians are horribly passive about things that they don't like. The most that I can see happening is people getting behind a radical political party. Maybe other places would be different. But right now I think that people will just look at you strangely when you talk of revolution--you'll have more luck getting through to them if, for the time being at least, you advocate something a bit more moderate. |
It is just as well we are unlikely to have a real rip-roaring heads on a pike revolution. Very few revolutions have produced a better system than the one overthrown. The American Revolution ultimately produced a workable system better than monarchy, but only after a war that killed 620,000 (the American Civil War). The French Revolution was a disaster. After Robespierre came Napoleon. Very bad news. Napoleon embroiled Europe in war and it took many decades to sort his damages out. The Russian Revolution was even worse. It produced Stalin, a first class monster. The National Socialist revolution lead to the utter destruction of Germany. The Chinese Communist Revolution lead to the death of 60 million. And the revolution led by Kim Jung Il was a disaster producing an enslaved starving nation.
Looked at historically, Revolution does not have a good track record.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | It is just as well we are unlikely to have a real rip-roaring heads on a pike revolution. Very few revolutions have produced a better system than the one overthrown. The American Revolution ultimately produced a workable system better than monarchy, but only after a war that killed 620,000 (the American Civil War). The French Revolution was a disaster. After Robespierre came Napoleon. Very bad news. Napoleon embroiled Europe in war and it took many decades to sort his damages out. The Russian Revolution was even worse. It produced Stalin, a first class monster. The National Socialist revolution lead to the utter destruction of Germany. The Chinese Communist Revolution lead to the death of 60 million. And the revolution led by Kim Jung Il was a disaster producing an enslaved starving nation.
Looked at historically, Revolution does not have a good track record.
ruveyn |
Yes, and that's why I advocate reform--which you'd realize if you'd read other parts of my post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kjas
Onçinha
Joined: Feb 27, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 4879
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AstroGeek wrote: | | I don't think that there will ever be a revolution in the violent sense. Right now people's lives are, for the most part, too comfortable for them to them to want something that drastic. In 30 or 40 years I think that things will be a lot less comfortable and maybe there could be then. But my perspective does tend to be based off of Canada, and Canadians are horribly passive about things that they don't like. The most that I can see happening is people getting behind a radical political party. Maybe other places would be different. But right now I think that people will just look at you strangely when you talk of revolution--you'll have more luck getting through to them if, for the time being at least, you advocate something a bit more moderate. |
It's the same here. People here are much too comfortable for there to be anything of that magitude.
I'm not sure about the revolution / reform debate.
Revolution which is produced from the top to bottom or where a small group of people overtake the rest does tend to fail horribly. (as you have seen by the above examples)
If it was revolution from a bottom to the top by the vast majority, that might work. We don't know yet as we have not seen one.
In my mind, sometimes reform can be useful and sometimes it's not. Sometimes the problems are inherent in how things are structured, and in that case reform will only ever deal with part of the problem. If there is no problem in the power structure then I would advocate reform.
_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
VMSmith
a figment of my own imagination
Joined: Apr 18, 2011
Age: 21
Posts: 2674
Location: the old country
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
astrogeek: im sorry i didn't respond to this earlier. i just felt bad about stuff so i decided to stay away from people as much as possible.
by attitude to the cops i mean that when the cops went on strike they decided to put a motion forth at occupy sydney to support the police in their effort to gain better disability supports from the government. after they had harrassed us broken up the protest violently, arrested a bunch of us for protesting and generally socialists do not support the cops because they are there to protect property and enforce the status quo and all that comes with it. to even suggest that we act nice with them is just wrong.
the greens are left compared with the other 2 parties but they have been shifting more and more to the right and their left is just inactive- they have power over the gillard government because labour is a minority government but they havent used it to influence any decision- refugees or same sex marriage for example. and they like the police and their new leader is someone who did their degree at ADFA, is an economist and worked for Deutsche Bank and the bank of america. future of the greens is looking bad.
i think that if there is a revolution it will be violent. the capitalist class will not relenquish their power easily. i also think that if there is no revolution it will be violent- difficulties of our daily lives under capitalism range from alienation and poverty to struggling to survive in war torn countries when imperialist forces attack or trying to avoid being attacked by your own state and its armed forces at a picket, demonstration or walking down the street if you're ethnic. there is already violence in the world.
i think the capitalist class is right to be demonised. if they were moral beings they would relenquish their wealth and power and hand over control of the workplace to the workers. if they are of the ruling class then they cant have gotten so rich without exploiting people. i find it really amusing that there were actually studies conducted into this finding that, yes, the rich actually are less moral than the rest of us.
the petty bourgeoisie i think should still be made to hand over control of the workplace to the workers but i dont think they are bad people all the time. they can take the side of the worker at times but even if they did support workers rights they still havent got the same industrial power to do anything about their beliefs. also if they have people working under them then they must be exploiting them in some way- they cant run a successful business otherwise.
i think that, despite living in flat political times(at least here we are. europe, the middle east, latin america are more exciting right now) it is always important to talk about revolution. i dont think we will have a revolution right now or soon but you still need to convince as many people as you can about the relevance of marxism now so that in 30-40 years there's a least a group of people who know what to do when the time comes and the working class is aware of their own power and start to revolt so we dont end up like egypt now. egypt makes the case for why there should be an organised left group with the right politics making the arguments on the way forward. and even if we do live in dead political times people in the west but especially nth america were angry enough with the system to occupy everything and make their point on economic inequality and this was inspired by the worldwide political landscape- especially the indignados in spain and arab spring. plus even laid back people have histories of struggle. people always say australians are apathetic too but our history says otherwise.
reforms and protests are my idea of moderate...
kjas: i agree that top down revolutions can only fail and that it has to be bottom to the top. i think that you can use the russian revolution as an example of a bottom up revolution that worked. it did make mistakes though and since im unoriginal i'll just copy paste from a post i made months ago:
post revolution russia was socialist but only for a brief while. and it fell because of a number of reasons(not because socialism/ communism is inherantly flawed.):
1. russias economy was under developed- it did not have the wealth necessary to support a socialist state on its own because
2. you cant have socialism in one state- capitalist economies are linked and to separate your self from the others would be to destroy the economy and ensure the mass wealth capitalism produces and the different goods different countries produce cant be distributed to where they are needed. other revolutions in neighbouring countries were defeated making russia an island.
3. civil war/ a bunch of countries ganged up on russia and a lot of people died and states stopped tradding with russia.
4. the working class the state was built upon ceased to exist as they either died in war or they left the cities where they had previously been concentrated for the country to revert to farming.
5. counter revolution under stalin. state capitalism ensues.
but you probably just know that. i more just write it for my own education. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
