I’m pretty familiar with Marxist doctrine and the justification they put out
about the revolution in Russia. I get it that Russia wasn’t the proper place
etc. But as you have pointed out, you can not always tell where revolutions
will happen. So what would be the best place? And how will such a revolution
occur? I guarantee you that if it is a violent revolution, which it most surely
will have to be to rest power from the hands of those who hold it, there will
be a reciprocal violent reaction eventually. That seems to be how history
works. If we can’t figure out a way to do peaceful nonviolent change, we are
screwed. Gandhi knew it. Jesus knew it. The Buddha knew it. Dr. Martin Luther
King New it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 27, 2018, at 7:21 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You might want to consider the objective conditions that lead to the
corruption of a revolutionary state rather than just assume that corruption
is as natural as the sunrise. In the case of the Soviet Union I would refer
you to a book by Leon Trotsky entitled The Revolution Betrayed. He offers an
analysis of what went wrong. First, Russia was not the ideal place to have a
socialist revolution. Marx himself had said that it would be better to wait
until capitalism had reached a maximum capacity of production. However, as I
have explained, we just do not have the fine control to decide when to have a
revolution and when to wait. If we had control of social forces that precise
we could just skip revolution altogether and start building a new socialist
society without it. As I have also explained, that is the way we would really
prefer it. But again, revolution is like a natural disaster. When it comes we
have to deal with it and try to control it as well as possible in order to
get the best outcome that we can. The reason Russia was not the best place to
have a socialist revolution was that it was still economically backwards.
Germany or England would have been much better choices. Russia had an
underdeveloped capitalist economy and was still largely under the influence
of the remnants of feudalism. The serfs had been freed by an earlier tsar,
but without an effort to educate them and to relieve them of the effective
enslavement they labored under there was simply no yeomanry to work with.
Then, Russia had just been involved in the greatest interimperialist war that
had ever been fought. It was such a large conflagration that it had earned a
name that had not been applied to any other war, the world war. This Russian
participation in that war had pretty much devastated the Russian economy by
itself and Russia was far from free of physical destruction. When the
bolsheviks took power they immediately unilaterally withdrew Russia from the
war, but undoing the damage was not so easy. Then tsarist forces and the
white Russians rather objected to the bolshevik government too and waged
civil war against it. Well, what does more war do after just getting out of
another war? It causes even more destruction. So we had a new revolutionary
government that was dedicated to equality for all, but there was not enough
to go around for all. If all the consumer goods and food that was available
was distributed to everyone equally then everyone would have been destitute
and starving. As hard as it was to make such decisions it was necessary to
prioritize distribution and production too. Then there was the problem of who
was going to do the distributing. If there is not enough to go around for all
and you are in charge of the distribution then, of course, you are going to
include yourself and your family in a high priority category. This created an
instant privileged layer in the economy. Then along came Stalin. I have some
suspicions about his having been a clinical sociopath and a solopsist, but
whether that is true or not he was a very strong authoritarian with his own
ideas of how the social system should be arranged and he had no scruples
about forcing it no matter what obstacles were in the way. He tried to
rebuild the Russian productive capacity by brute force without any regard to
other things that should have been taken care of. By decree he rescinded very
many gains of the revolution to suit himself. But on what basis did he rest
his power? It was upon that privileged caste that had been born as the layer
who had been in charge of distribution. They had accrued power and could lose
it very easily and if they lost it it would not be like just having to get a
new job with lower pay. Stalin rewarded them and severely threatened them at
the same time and so was able to consolidate his own power. By the way, it
did take some consolidation too. Despite the image you have probably absorbed
from capitalist depictions of the Soviet Union he did not instantly become
the absolute dictator. Eventually he did essentially do that, but for some
time his position was pretty perilous. I could go on about how he distorted
the whole world communist movement and subordinated it to his theory of
socialism in one country and made foreign communist parties instruments of
his own foreign policy. I could go on about a lot of nefarious things he did.
But suffice it to say that the rise of Stalinism was a complete betrayal of
the communist movement. The task of the uncorrupted communists became
examining where the Russian revolution went wrong and being careful to not
repeat the mistakes that led to Stalinism. This objective examination is all
part of being scientific socialists. Of course it is still necessary to take
whatever revolution you can get, but if you get one in a country that is less
than ideal it is still well to examine the specifics of what went wrong in
Russia. What you should not do is to ignore the objective conditions and just
make pronouncements like it is just human nature to be corrupted by power. It
is more of a matter that already being corrupt makes one strive for personal
power. But one really should not just ignore the objective causes for things
going wrong. That falls far short of being scientific.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence
will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/26/2018 11:30 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, well, the problem arises when those who are running the state get
corrupted by power; and we've seen that that is what happens more often than
not. I'm being generous here. It would be more accurate to say that that is
what happens pretty much all the time.
That being the case, it is hardly a plausible notion that the state will
stop oppressing, as you put it: "When objective conditions ease to the point
that there s is not possibility that these regressive forces can overthrow
what you have fought for then the state can start withering away, ..."
What is overwhelmingly more likely to happen, and which history will verify
ad nauseam is that the state will go on oppressing just for the sake of
oppressing, because the people running it have gotten corrupted by power.
They will invent new class enemies, new regressive forces, scapegoats for
why things haven't turned out as well as was promised, et cetera, et cetera,
and the whole sorry cycle will repeat itself.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 11:10 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
As a matter of fact, upon the completion of a revolution the oppressed
class does become the ruling class. I would recommend that you read
State and Revolution by Vladimir I. Lenin to learn how the dynamics of
this process plays out. That book was written as a polemic against the
anarchists who wanted to just abolish the state by decree upon the
triumph of the revolution and Lenin explained that would be throwing
away the entire revolution and all of its gains. The reason is that
civil war or not and winning the civil war or not it is impossible to
kill each and every person who benefited from the old order. Let's look
at what the state is. Lenin explained this, but if you read Hobbs you
will see that he was well aware of it too. The state is an apparatus by
which one class exercises power over another class by means of violence
or the threat of violence. The armed forces and the police force are the
instruments of violence that the state uses to wield that violence. If
you don't believe this just try to defy the state. Pick out a minor
crime against bourgeois law. Make sure you are observed violating it
because it is possible to get away with minor crimes if you are careful.
Try, say, jaywalking in front of a cop. When he tries to give you a
ticket tell him that you do not recognize the authority of his
government nor his authority either. Then when he arrests you resist the
arrest. Defy the power of the state at every turn. When you are taken to
court repeat that you do not recognize the court's authority and try to
walk out. When you are taken to jail do your best to escape. Continue to
resist and defy at every turn and just see how long it takes for you to
get shot. Anyway, abolishing the state by decree would mean abolishing
all armed forces and police and to do so right after the revolution. If
you do that the very next thing that will happen is that the people who
benefited from the old order will instantly reestablish the state again
and the revolutionary struggle you just went through will be instantly
defeated and you will be worse off than you were before the revolution
even got started. You will be worse off because you can't really expect
that your enemies will not want to take some revenge. What happens is
that the class that was formally oppressed forms its own state and then
proceeds to oppressed the former oppressors. As time passes this can
ease off but as long as there are regressive forces about both domestic
and foreign who would reestablish their own form of a state as soon as
you abolish yours then you have to maintain the workers state. When
objective conditions ease to the point that there s is not possibility
that these regressive forces can overthrow what you have fought for then
the state can start withering away, as Lenin put it He then said that
the state will gradually cease to administer people and will start
administering things. By things he meant commodities and services that
are necessary to human needs and comfort. When it administers only
things it is no longer a state.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/25/2018 11:54 AM, Evan Reese wrote:
Okay, I've heard this scenario before, and just for the sake of discussion,
I'll grant its vallidity.
The problem is what happens after the revolution of the oppressed class.
From the many examples we have seen, what always happens is that the
formerly oppressed class simply becomes the new ruling class, and the cycle
starts all over again. I could go into a long litany of revolutions, some
called themselves Communist, some called themselves Socialist, where this
has been played out, but I don't think I need to.
When I asked you where this has been tried and how it worked out, the only
example you mentioned was Cuba. And even there, how much freedom do the
people have? When was the last time they were permitted to choose their
leaders? How much criticism of their government are they permitted?
The reason for this is that dominance hierarchies are wired into our
genetics. You can see it in our chimp relatives and ape ancestors. It goes
back much farther than that into our mammalian ancestry though. Until or
unless humans get a genetic makeover, the notion of a classless society
will always remain a pipe dream.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:58 AM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Okay, let me explain the inevitability of revolution in more detail. In
a class society the people who find themselves in the oppressed classes
will resent this. Despite the fact that ruling class ideology permeates
society as a whole on an individual level and collectively when the
individuals combine their actions resentment is there and people will
take actions to lessen the disparities that they are subject to. These
actions may take the form of organizing unions or it may take the form
of engaging in political action, but the whole point is to make the
social system more fair. During most of the time the organizers of the
resistance do not even see the necessity of overthrowing the entire
system, but think they can reform it into something that will be more
fair. Because of fluctuations in a class economy these disparities may
be greater at some times than at other times and the amount of
resistance may be greater than it is at other times. This is all called
the class struggle. Sometimes the oppressed classes will make gains and
the rulers have to make concessions to maintain their rule and at other
times it is the oppressed classes that have to make the concessions. One
thing the oppressed classes do not want to do is to get involved in a
revolution. Let's face it, revolution is not only to the great
disadvantage of the class that is being deposed, but a lot of workers
die and a lot of infrastructure is destroyed and it is to the great
disadvantage of everyone. However, as the class struggle ebbs and flows
the point comes that the rulers see that they may be in actual danger of
being deposed. They will resist that by any means necessary. Concessions
is one means, but if the push for an equitable system continues other
means are used. That means violence. In every revolution in history the
violence was initiated by the rulers in an attempt to maintain their
rule. What are the ruled to do? They have to defend themselves. If they
do not defend themselves they lose every bit of progress they have made
up until that time and they are likely to lose their lives too. As they
defend themselves against violence with return violence the violence
escalates. This becomes a process that cannot be stopped by either side
because each side stands to lose everything if they give up. It is
something like a natural disaster. When a hurricane, for example,
approaches you cannot stop the hurricane no matter what you do. You can
only deal with it. A lot of planning and preparation make it easier to
deal with with, but whether you deal with it well or poorly it is still
going to happen. That is what a revolutionary party is for, to deal with
the revolution when it happens. That is where the responsibility comes
in. It is responsible to have a cadre of people who are trained in how
to deal with revolution and who will step in to guide the revolution
when it comes to make sure that the best outcome is arrived at.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence
for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer
and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/24/2018 11:03 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Sorry, but that sounds like a ducking of responsibility to me.
So Lenin had no choice when he committed his oppression? Was it all just
an inevitable product of ineluctable historical forces? He was just a tool
of history, and had no responsibility for what he did?
You may consider that too many questions, but they're all related, so they
really boil down to one: Do humans have responsibility for what they do or
not?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:49 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Miriam Vieni
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
As I have said before, you don't get a choice of whether you get a
revolution or not. When Trotsky was asked if all the destruction and
death was worth it he said that the question was teleological. When
class contradictions sharpen to the point that revolution breaks out the
best you can do is to steer it and guide it into the best outcome you
can and ameliorate the destruction that occurs along the way.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence
for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer
and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/24/2018 9:45 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Evan,
What about peaceful change as revolution? That's about the only kind of
revolution I'd support. The problem is, it doesn't seem as if powerful
social forces can be controlled.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
I would like to add my voice to the welcomes, Mary.
I've seen you on other lists. You seem pretty tech savvy, which is cool.
I am also new here. I joined last week. On social issues I'm definitely
left of center, but on economic issues I'm in the center, or maybe even a
bit to the right. I support the current economic system. I defend the
"capitalist running dogs" around here. (Yes, some people actually talked
like that in the 20th century. Fortunately, humanity has moved on since
then. Mostly that
is.)
Seriously though, I am more than happy to talk about shortcomings of the
current economic model and how to fix them, but I'm not interested in
revolution. I'm with John Lennon:
But when you talk about destruction,
Don'tcha know that you can count me out.
So once again, welcome. I hope you enjoy it here.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:50 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Hello and welcome, Mary.
If you have a natural curiosity and a sense of adventure, you've come to
the right list. We do try hard to stay on target and not fall into name
calling, as happens on the ACB chat list at times. But a good sense of
humor and a moderately thick skin, and you'll soon be right at home.
As for me, besides being Carl Jarvis, I am a self proclaimed Progressive,
an Agnostic, and 83 years old. My wife and I provide services to older
blind and low vision folks on the Great Olympic Peninsula, through our
organization named, Peninsula Rehabilitation Services. We've been at it
almost 24 years and have worked with well over 3,000 clients. I'm
totally blind...for the past 55 years. Cathy and I work as a team since
living here in the deep, dark forest does not allow a blind man the
ability to travel to many of our clients alone.
And just for the record, eating, sleeping, working, vacationing and
breathing the same air day after day finds us still deeply in love with
one another.
Carl Jarvis
(PS. Cathy's horse is down this morning. She's called the vet and is
trying to get him up and moving. I was going to buy a new keyboard
today, but it's looking as if I'll have to make do with these sticky keys
for a while longer.)
On 10/23/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Mary,
This list is suddenly becoming busy. We've acquired two new members
and will, I believe, be acquiring another one. It's an ill wind that
blows no good, they say. I do believe we can thank Mr. Trump for the
rejuvenation of this list. At any rate, I'll forward one of the Real
News Network digests to the list. It's a website which has excellent
little news videos that you can listen to and also, there's a text of
each one, I believe. I'll forward one of the digests. You go to the
heading of the story in which you're interested, which is also a link,
and then, you move down until you find a play button and press enter.
If you find the website, you can sign up for your own digests. The
website is in Baltimore. Its founder, Paul Jay, comes from Canada,
and it does national, international, and local Baltimore news.
Some of my favorite people are on there: max Blumenthal, Ben Norton,
Dean Baker, etc.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mary Otten
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] New member
Hi folks,
I just joined this list, of whose existence I had no idea until a
friend forwarded me a book recommendation from one of the BARD lists,
where this list was mentioned. I recognize Miriam's name from the
bookshare list of many years ago. We liked lots of the same books on
political/historical topics. Anyway, I joined out of curiosity to see
what the list was like.
I've seen a couple posts, one of which mentioned the real news
network, with which I am not familiar. what is it?
Mary
