|
Zonie63 -> RE: Call to the communists, in Rolling Stone (1/8/2014 6:14:38 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
I'm probably far more knowledgeable about the communist sales pitch than you could ever imagine, Joether.
As I said, I thought it was a fun read.
Each of the points used here, and all the rest, may sound good in the ear of the oppressed, and any organizer worth a damn can chatter endlessly on any of them, but all of it completely dodges the fatal flaw in the communist system - its foundation is a foolishly delusional view of human nature. We are not all happy, dumb, sheep.
One could probably make the same argument about any political system.
quote:
What gets left out of the sales pitch is the brutal totalitarianism required to evolve the New Soviet Man from the masses.
I wouldn't deny the totalitarianism, but what often gets left out of that "sales pitch" are the circumstances which led to the totalitarianism in question. Russia was a traumatized country; there's no denying that. They'd been invaded countless times, ruled by foreign powers at times, other times ruled by oppressive Tsarist tyrants. By 1917, they were devastated by World War I, in which they had the highest losses. Just a few key reforms along with a modicum of political support from the Western Allies might have bolstered the Kerensky regime and prevented the Bolsheviks from taking power (and the Bolsheviks were just a single faction among many).
The subsequent Russian Civil War also was a key factor, even more than the "sales pitch." One thing that probably clinched the Bolsheviks' victory was the Western Allied intervention on the side of the counter-revolutionaries and former Tsarist leaders. More people rallied to the Bolshevik cause because they could then say they were fighting for Mother Russia against foreign invaders. Trotsky's oratory was also credited as a major factor in gaining recruits for the Red Army, which swelled to over 5 million during that conflict. Maybe that was also part of the "sales pitch," but keep in mind that these were battle-hardened veterans and people who had seen years of devastation and oppression. These were not starry-eyed, naive college kids living off mommy and daddy's trust fund.
Another thing that should be mentioned is that the Russian Empire was multi-national, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-lingual - all under the same regime with a lot of the non-Russian nationalities not being particularly thrilled with being part of it. That really had nothing to do with anyone's "sales pitch" as much as it was just a historical circumstance they faced.
As I mentioned before, success or failure for a country should not be credited to or blamed on any abstract "system," since that's an oversimplification. Whatever characteristics or individual "personality" a regime takes on would largely be attributed to their own historical circumstances, political traditions, and shared experiences - which invariably differ from nation to nation. The "system" is an incidental component, and hardly an indicator of a regime's intentions - any more than religion would be an indicator.
One thing I've observed that comes out of revolutionary extremism (regardless of whether it's on the left or right) is that the revolutionaries themselves often fall out and begin to prey on each other. This is what happened with the Bolsheviks, which were themselves a product of infighting within a larger faction of socialist revolutionaries. After Lenin's death, Stalin managed to wind up on top and sought to eliminate all the old Bolsheviks which he saw as rivals and possible threats to his power. Ironically, Stalin had no real "sales pitch." Within the party, he was just considered a "gray blur"; Trotsky called Stalin "the great mediocrity of the party." How he managed to gain power is an interesting study in party politics and the mechanics of raw "power" in human organizations. The actual sales pitch was rather clumsy, doltish, and obvious when presented to the masses.
I will give credit to Stalin in some areas. Russia did need to modernize and build up her industries, and Stalin did manage to push the country farther than they probably would have gone under another regime. Russia was still lagging behind the West and needed to catch up. There was some build-up of industry under the Imperial regime, but it was slow going. That crippled them in the Russo-Japanese War and in WW1. They were victorious in WW2, but at great cost and also with enormous devastation, although Stalin was partly responsible for starting that war by signing a pact with Hitler in 1939, so that's also a black mark against him.
However, as "systems" go, I'll also mention that, considering the amount of devastation, destruction, and loss of life they faced in the two World Wars, a Civil War - along with a long history of invasion and endless tragedy, they still managed to recover and be able to provide the basics of living, if not luxurious by Western standards. They made enormous strides in science and technology, and were the first ones to send a man into space. They were quite powerful and we well knew it. They were tough competition for us and held their own for quite a while. They weren't about to be trifled with or treated as a second-rate power. They didn't trust us for good reason, and we didn't trust them for good reason. The only real tragedy is that both sides allowed their own hotheads and warmongers to rise to the top, putting us into a geopolitical nightmare which we're still in to this day. I won't forget that about both sides, communists and capitalists. Both are to blame for how things turned out. But I will also grudgingly give credit to both sides where it is deserved.
The brutal totalitarianism is/was a consequence of many factors, and I don't have any illusions about the communists or what they did; the crimes they committed, the brutality, the murder of countless millions. I don't think anyone has forgotten that, but I think the circumstances today are different than they were in Russia in 1917. If a few key moderate economic reforms are proposed, it doesn't automatically mean that people are going to be shipped off to gulags by the millions. I've always found that "fear" to be a bit over the top and rather illogical when you look at it.
The only reason it might turn out that way is if the wealthy 1% turns out to be too stubborn. If they're not willing to give on at least a few issues, that may be a bit too reckless and intransigent on their part. That's how extremism happens; not because of a system or a sales pitch - but because of ideological intransigence which just escalates and begets more ideological intransigence.
Lenin's sales pitch was "peace, land, and bread." If that's all it took, then why the fuck couldn't the previous regime just give them peace, land, and bread? Revolutions are never caused by a sales pitch; they're caused by decades of mismanagement, bureaucratic corruption, and tyranny. The brutality usually follows as a consequence.
|
|
|
|
