Dialogue of the Deaf: Debating Ted Koppel on Communism 

It seemed at the time that communism had failed but that moment opened up an opportunity for leftists who had always been angry at the betrayal of a great potential and hope in the Bolshevik era. But it also warned that a new brand was essential and that the cognitive dissonance of leftist terminology could not refer to the Leninist era and to the future at the same time. The ‘end of history’ was soon to be nothing of the kind.
So, drop all old terminology and start over, from ‘communism’ to neo-communism, and to terminology failsafed now, as in ‘democratic market neo-communism’, where a four or more fold process can reopen the debate and struggle for a postcapitalist future.

Source: Dialogue of the Deaf: Debating Ted Koppel on Communism – CounterPunch.org

revolution meets ‘(counter/) revolution’?…Political scientist on the crisis of democracy: ‘This is the same roadmap we saw in Germany’ 

We have said all along that a time of chaotification is coming, and in the US it has come already. We have created a basic socialist model that is benign, postmarxist, but quite ready to challenge to fascist turn to what is really counterrevolution. Our model learns from but disowns the marxist legacy which will produce instant conflict from more than just the right. This model will be able to mediate reformism/revolution/chaos and will be set to appeal to those who can see that democracy really requires a soft socialism and a new kind of economy/politics. This approach pulls a rabbit out of a hat, and it is a pretty tough rabbit at that: we offer failsafed revolutionary action, and/or reformist minimalism: our DMNC could get set in place with one or two sets of laws passed as legislation.
These options are still long shots but the situation follows a dialectical mystery: instead of active passive reconciliation we are watching the ‘passive’ (here the demonic right), reconciliation, active: chaos/fascism, mediation of opposites, an active response on the left.

We have critiqued the left, but here we see the use of a different brand. More latter, or make a paper airplane there. But have renounced dialectical thinking, but here it pops out in a new form:

as Bennett shows there are six triads of dialectical logic: Active, Passive, Reconciliation, APR, And:

ARP, PAR, RAP, R….etc…this may be the last time we use this, but our notion seems relevant to our present as a version of triadic process. Forget I mentioned it.

Next….!
The issue is that the right is undermining itself and creating a future for its opposite. The WWI/bolshevism seems to have followed a similar dialectic. Our approach is better because it has a model this is holistic from the start: democracy and socialism. The Bolshevik era saw the collision of an attempted liberal democracy and a Bolshevik ‘coup’ or transition. Our model unites the two opposites one: DMNC, and be able to establish itself more coherently at the start.

Source: Political scientist on the crisis of democracy: ‘This is the same roadmap we saw in Germany’ – Alternet.org

Beyond the flawed Marxism to a new socialism: we were running out of time, now out of time?

postcapitalist_ futures_NWBK_ver2a_LFT_2021: The Last Revolution

I have been following Marxmail for decades without being able to contribute, then suddenly was able to post after Proyect’s passing. (He had actually and graciously allowed me to join the list in 2000 after being unsubbed by the old Pen-l, but that didn’t last long). But within days I was (apparently) unsubbed (I can’t figure out my status).

It is ‘my fault’ for rapidly (since I suspected this would happen) tossing taboo subjects into the mix: balling Marxists out over 9/11, (Darwinism, ran out time, but many posts here on left and that theory), Marx’s flawed theories of history. But I got a lot of links onto the list, and people are reading The Last Revolution, link above. So maybe, success?

I rushed that book to a usable but unfinished PDF form instead of a paperback to post on it on Marmail. I apologize for its rough spots but it makes its point more or less, and actually is better very short and as a PDF. The modern world has a huge tribe of leftist Marxists who are ideologically paraplegic given the confusions of Marxism. And the charge that it is really that ‘ism’ that led to Stalinism is unfair, but only up to a point.
My diagnosis/opinion is Marxism post Bolshevism has to reinvent itself (and drop the cult of personality in its Marx-ism name), consider the implications of ‘smashing the bourgeois state’. Instead, it would work better along the lines of my idea of (eco-socialist) ‘democratic market neo-communism’. ( I use the terms socialism, (neo-)communism interchangeably. This is not reformist compromise but a shift in reference to a four-term system, which is four times more complex than the one-term, but in a way simpler for that same reason. It can’t veer off into Stalinism, one would hope, because a democracy is not a democracy if it is not socialist (i.e. strong equality and shared resources and economic rights, etc…), and a socialism is not socialism if it is not democratic. With similar thinking about BOTH markets and planning (this time ‘socialist’ markets based on a Commons where capitalists now managers license resources from the Commons). This kind of system will work if a liberals system works. Marx made the whole question too complicated and his work has confused every generation of Marxists since.

It comes with a catch: you must expropriate (large-scale resources and Capital into a Commons, which is not State Capitalism)
Using this approach, Bolshevism was not a communism at all because it had no democracy. Period, in this four-term system. This kind of fail-safe would make it very easy to create a postcapitalist system that is really viable, subject to the ‘catch’. Note that both the US and China (and all other cases) are actually malformed versions of the above model which applies to all cases in theory. The US if you look close has some shared resources, but no socialist markets, etc…China has actually added (not socialist) markets to its still pseudo-communism, but has no democracy, etc,….

So, guess what, the US is not a democracy because it is not socialist. Thousands of critics have made the point in their own way for over a century, so the idea is not so strange. Capitalism has coopted democracy.

It may be too late to recast the system, by reform or revolution, but then we are doomed to go over Niagara Falls in a fireball of global warming.
Consider the issue of private property, that is Capital. To allow Exxon-Mobil et al. to own natural resources as private property was seen as unjust at the start but it has now become malevolent. The case of Exxon is that they knew in the seventies of the last century that they were doing something dangerous, but they suppressed their own research and still to this day are indifferent to their own reckless crime against humanity. Right now in the news of the Biden era bill Exxon is in the background trying to move one of its paid-for dummies in Congress to sabotage a last chance for some action on climate change. If you still believe in private property for resources like oil you may be a hopeless dummy, very much the American type.

Americans need to face reality: idiots! Idiots with the power to destroy a planet. Their manipulated stupidity is simply the way capitalism has always destroyed democracy. The danger was seen early on by the first socialists, taken up by Marx/Engels who took over and then monopolized the whole subject, but their mistakes have proven a curse and the failure of Bolshevism was always ominous: capitalism is now so entrenched and its victims so willingly brainwashed that it could be too late. The Last Revolution refers to the era of 1848 and its failed revolutions, with Marx/Engels very much in the mix. The socialists spoke then of the Last Revolution and their ‘prophecy’ should prove to be just that if we wish to survive. But this ‘revolution’ can in principle be reformist, because a reformist project can in theory makes constitutional changes.

Let us note that FDR-ism was trying to invent our DMNC model, but his New Deal still falls short. If only the (pseudo-) communists of that era, very much in play ca. the FDR constellation, could have had a better platform. But the Bolsheviks lurking in the background blocked anything beyond FDR-ism from happening.
Note again our point: Bolshevism was NOT communism because it had no democracy. And no ‘socialist markets’.
We should note also that our model of DMNC or ‘Democratic_Market_Neo_Communism_ver_5(2) is not about state capitalism, but a Commons, with its own legal checks and balances. Fake Bolsheviss with their private dachas controlling ‘state capitalism’ could never arise in a DMNC (with an eco-socialism in the mix). And so on.
It would have been relatively easy to set up such a system far earlier but the legacy of Marxism confused thinking, in fact, it was the lack of any thinking, since Marx refused to predict the future with anything specific.
Marx’s theories of history are the problem. Much of his other thinking is still very cogent. But the failure to model communism/socialism in specifies proved fatal.
The same could happen with our superior model: maybe still not complex enough.

We should cite Decoding World History because it offers a very simple outline of world history instead of the false economic fundamentalism of Marx.

postcapitalist_ futures_NWBK_ver2a_LFT_2021
9780984702930-LFM_text(2)
Decoding World History_ED1

The eonic effect versus marxist economic historicism

https://redfortyeight.com/?s=eonic+effect%2C+Israel%2C+Archaic+Greece

The last series of posts of today show the difficulty of studying world history, evolution, and much else. The results are immensely complex and prone to disintegration with the wrong kind of applied theory. The Marxist project in this context is unrealistic and too reductionist. We see that world history is too complex for economic explanations. The left needs to beware then, as the example of Bolshevism makes obvious, applying too narrow analyses to cultural totalities. This is said as a kind of warning of what is already the case: Marxists are wasting their breath because the general culture will not buy into a Marxist cultural system.
But this is not a rejection of socialism or communism. These are more than adapted already to world historical evolution and emerge in the contextg of the modern transition and the appearanceof capitalism. Marxist confused everyone by th eway Marx took control of the ideas of the early socialists and drove them out of business with his own flawed formulation. There is much of value in Marx, but a viable socialism (neo-communism) needs a new framework. We have provide an example very easily. Marxists are closed in a cult and will doubtfully listen here. The spell of Marx is too great. But his overall corpus of theory is mediocre and leads to wrong results, if not Stalinism.

Nope, let’s forget bolshevism, marx and start over…why did the early french socialists invent ‘socialism’….//Socialists Should Take the Right Lessons From the Russian Revolution

I have come to advocate simply deleting the Bolshevik, even the Marxist legacy, a less drastic resolution than it might seem. This fascinating article is however a reminder that no matter how many times I try to get the Bolshevik case straight, I fail and stand corrected by a new book, research or recalculation. I have thus learned the hard way that the post-Marx era leading into the era of Bolshevism is impossible to get straight. One must find a project to realize in the present, having started over.
One will do better to let it slide into the black hole that it is and to try and find a new set of categories along socialist lines. In fact this experience soon extends to the figures of Marx and Engels whose brilliant work belies the fact that they got mostly everything wrong (and a lot of things right). A core issue is Marx’s view of history and the useless historical materialism. The historical myth of feudalism, capitalism communism has confused every generation and is patently inaccurate and mythological. The idea that a Marxist group will rewrite culture using historical materialism is a futile hope, and looking closely see that socialism never gets off the ground, and that Bolshevism is mostly a distraction.
So what to do? It should suddenly work to take specific models and see how they might be realized. The idea of socialism is too abstract. But the moment we go from one-term systems to more specific constructions the whole past fantasy world of socialism starts to take form, finally.
The idea of democratic market neo-communism is an example. Suddenly the reality of a socialist, or here ‘neo-communist’ construct springs to life, because we have abandoned useless abstractions and moved to ask how we can realize a given model under the axioms of expropriation. This is not the reformist/revolution debate although that remains relevant: or model offers two interpretations, one for reformist, one for revolutionaries. You can have congress that could expropriate private property, or a revolution to top down our DMNC. In each case the core option is the lesson programmer’s learn: remorph what you have incrementally and then debug it. Here we start with a liberal system and remorph it into a neo-communism. That’s more than reformism, a different issue.

The point is that Marxism has made the whole subject impossibly complicated and dependent on an elite proposing to decipher Marx and then Lenin.

Our DMNC could be realized in a short period of time and be functional with a decent economy and political system. It is the recipe approach, not theory abstractions. We might just forget Marx and Lenin, and start to get practical.

Socialists have rightly taken inspiration from the Russian Revolution for generations, but many of the lessons drawn from it are wrong for our own time. To make change today, we need to take democratic socialism seriously as a theory and practice.

Source: Socialists Should Take the Right Lessons From the Russian Revolution

 Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution, updated

update: This argument is perhaps too tricky, and we failed to consider that eonic emergents inside transitions tend to resurface in the mideonic period. ‘Revolutions’ are an innovation in world history, in part because change must transform already existing forms, usually in decline. Kant unwitting points to the process (which ended up in the confusing ‘end of history’ argumentof Hegel): his essay on history points to or asks for evidence for ‘the progression toward a perfect constitution’, etc… The eonic effect shows this directly and also the two attempts starting in Ancient Greece. Note that in both cases democracy seeds just at or before the ‘divide’, Solon ca. 600 BCE and in the American and French case (which is confusing and seems to fail and never makes quite clear what it was about) 1800 BCE. In ancient Greece the process remains murky until suddenly in the fifth century we see a democracy in action, it suffers tragedy by the end of the fifth to fourth (is that accurate?).
Note that ‘democracy’ is one of the favorite children of the eonic series and it must be utterly frustrated in the modern case with its American instance, already it seems a failure. But modern times has endless failsafe and exemplars that can carry the future.
But as we have noted and as Marx discussed it well, the democratic format is vulnerable to capture by capitalism, born in the modern case we suggest almost the same time as democracy, at the divide at the Industrial Revolution point. A spectacular conjunction. If we can rescue Marx from his confusions of theory his analysis is very apt and/or taken from the early socialists just before him, and suggests that democracy with a socialist blend can be ‘real democracy’. But his later theories muddled the whole question with a theory of history.
We have been hard on Hegel and he seems to belie or confuse his Kantian beginning but his argument seems to grasp what the eonic process shows clearly: we confront in world history something that can act anywhere anytime and direct somehow the evolution of freedom and the issue of triads enters from earlier mystics and, and, …Marx reaction toward materialism is cogent but doesn’t really establish itself as historical theory.
As to the eonic effect we have a useful tool freed of theistic confusions or hegelian ‘geist’, and confusions of reductionist scientism, but we don’t really know what it is, but we can detect from its spectacular non-coincidental instances its mysterious action. The case of democracy is a good example and it leaves a strange signature: ‘free action’ before the divide shows system action, a kind of push or direction at lower degree of freedom and then becomes free action proper at a higher degree of freedom. Like the third wheel on a child’s bike: the third wheel lowers the degree of freedom so the child can learn, but then the third wheel is removed as the child gains a higher degree of freedom (to ride the bike).
This analogy resembles the ‘induced’ democracy and the subsequence actual democracy in the eonic series. Can man pass the test? The US as current looks fairly hopeless.
Marx wanted ‘materialism’ but as we have shown there is a whole range of such, one being (as in our Sankhya, ancient and modern) of the Samkhya brand, which was actually to end up in the Christian brand in a preposterous blend that suggests ‘atheist Christianity’ was actually an original viewpoint.
We could rewrite Hegel as Samkhya materialism, to a chorus of howls of protest.
______________________

Decoding World History ED1_dwh1x

Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution

This is the most tricky kind of argument using the eonic effect but its indication is important, but only after careful study of the eonic model.

The point is the distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ in the phase of ‘eonic transitions’. Suddenly we get an insight into the difficulty the left has had with ‘revolutions’. There is (apparently) a distinction of revolutions with system action, like the French or American Revolutions and revolutions of free agency, like the Russian revolution. There is a lot so say here, but we might simply note that there is something obvious here with respect to the Russian case which suffered a confusion of democratic revolution and communist evolution. Everyone has always noted some anomalous about Bolshevism.
Marx’s attempt to make the case that a future revolution against capitalism on the way to communism will be the result of an historical dynamic in the sense of historical materialism is bad science and a source of great confusion for the left.
Clearly, future revolutions require careful deliberation over the nature of freely created revolutionary outcomes, a very difficult task and the reason the left tends to be stymied. But as the world system closes in on capitalism and ecological calamity immense care needs to be set on the issue without the bad science of Marxist ‘historical materialism’. Men have to freely create revolutionary change mindful of the ‘Murphy’s law’ effect that have occurred even in the earlier era.

That said, it is easy to see why Marx got confused here. The first transitions of the early modern are the Reformation  and the proto-communism of Munzer in the early sixteenth century just after Luther, a key deliberation of Engles.  Let us note that the first revolutionary nexus of modern times, beside the Reformation, was communism which preceeds even the the democratic revolutions. Note the way the gestating democracy of the English Civil war suffered chaotification and the whole phase passed into the suddenly conservatizing if not reactionary era of the Restorian, the classical case of coopted bourgois revolution passing into the era of the Parliament.

For Bastille Day, we have answers to a bunch of questions about the French Revolution.

Source: A Guide to the French Revolution

 Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution, updated

update: This argument is perhaps too tricky, and we failed to consider that eonic emergents inside transitions tend to resurface in the mideonic period. ‘Revolutions’ are an innovation in world history, in part because change must transform already existing forms, usually in decline. Kant unwitting points to the process (which ended up in the confusing ‘end of history’ argumentof Hegel): his essay on history points to or asks for evidence for ‘the progression toward a perfect constitution’, etc… The eonic effect shows this directly and also the two attempts starting in Ancient Greece. Note that in both cases democracy seeds just at or before the ‘divide’, Solon ca. 600 BCE and in the American and French case (which is confusing and seems to fail and never makes quite clear what it was about) 1800 BCE. In ancient Greece the process remains murky until suddenly in the fifth century we see a democracy in action, it suffers tragedy by the end of the fifth to fourth (is that accurate?).
Note that ‘democracy’ is one of the favorite children of the eonic series and it must be utterly frustrated in the modern case with its American instance, already it seems a failure. But modern times has endless failsafe and exemplars that can carry the future.
But as we have noted and as Marx discussed it well, the democratic format is vulnerable to capture by capitalism, born in the modern case we suggest almost the same time as democracy, at the divide at the Industrial Revolution point. A spectacular conjunction. If we can rescue Marx from his confusions of theory his analysis is very apt and/or taken from the early socialists just before him, and suggests that democracy with a socialist blend can be ‘real democracy’. But his later theories muddled the whole question with a theory of history.
We have been hard on Hegel and he seems to belie or confuse his Kantian beginning but his argument seems to grasp what the eonic process shows clearly: we confront in world history something that can act anywhere anytime and direct somehow the evolution of freedom and the issue of triads enters from earlier mystics and, and, …Marx reaction toward materialism is cogent but doesn’t really establish itself as historical theory.
As to the eonic effect we have a useful tool freed of theistic confusions or hegelian ‘geist’, and confusions of reductionist scientism, but we don’t really know what it is, but we can detect from its spectacular non-coincidental instances its mysterious action. The case of democracy is a good example and it leaves a strange signature: ‘free action’ before the divide shows system action, a kind of push or direction at lower degree of freedom and then becomes free action proper at a higher degree of freedom. Like the third wheel on a child’s bike: the third wheel lowers the degree of freedom so the child can learn, but then the third wheel is removed as the child gains a higher degree of freedom (to ride the bike).
This analogy resembles the ‘induced’ democracy and the subsequence actual democracy in the eonic series. Can man pass the test? The US as current looks fairly hopeless.
Marx wanted ‘materialism’ but as we have shown there is a whole range of such, one being (as in our Sankhya, ancient and modern) of the Samkhya brand, which was actually to end up in the Christian brand in a preposterous blend that suggests ‘atheist Christianity’ was actually an original viewpoint.
We could rewrite Hegel as Samkhya materialism, to a chorus of howls of protest.
______________________

Decoding World History ED1_dwh1x

Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution

This is the most tricky kind of argument using the eonic effect but its indication is important, but only after careful study of the eonic model.

The point is the distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ in the phase of ‘eonic transitions’. Suddenly we get an insight into the difficulty the left has had with ‘revolutions’. There is (apparently) a distinction of revolutions with system action, like the French or American Revolutions and revolutions of free agency, like the Russian revolution. There is a lot so say here, but we might simply note that there is something obvious here with respect to the Russian case which suffered a confusion of democratic revolution and communist evolution. Everyone has always noted some anomalous about Bolshevism.
Marx’s attempt to make the case that a future revolution against capitalism on the way to communism will be the result of an historical dynamic in the sense of historical materialism is bad science and a source of great confusion for the left.
Clearly, future revolutions require careful deliberation over the nature of freely created revolutionary outcomes, a very difficult task and the reason the left tends to be stymied. But as the world system closes in on capitalism and ecological calamity immense care needs to be set on the issue without the bad science of Marxist ‘historical materialism’. Men have to freely create revolutionary change mindful of the ‘Murphy’s law’ effect that have occurred even in the earlier era.

That said, it is easy to see why Marx got confused here. The first transitions of the early modern are the Reformation  and the proto-communism of Munzer in the early sixteenth century just after Luther, a key deliberation of Engles.  Let us note that the first revolutionary nexus of modern times, beside the Reformation, was communism which preceeds even the the democratic revolutions. Note the way the gestating democracy of the English Civil war suffered chaotification and the whole phase passed into the suddenly conservatizing if not reactionary era of the Restorian, the classical case of coopted bourgois revolution passing into the era of the Parliament.

For Bastille Day, we have answers to a bunch of questions about the French Revolution.

Source: A Guide to the French Revolution

 DMNC and the puzzle of the russian revolution

Although we have adopted a critique of Marxism, and stand wary at ‘theory’ the issues in the history of the left present a set of puzzles for our new perspective. We have spoken to both reformist and revolutionary viewpoints, but the reformist stance is misleading: we can stage a revolution via reformist stance, however unlikely, if ‘reform’ can move to change a constitution and/or expropriate capital. The latter seems implausible but nationalizations actually occurred in the English Labor era, etc…The revolutionary path is equally tricky and this article on the issue of revolution, and the case of Lenin present, and warn of the immensely tricky steps to any kind of socialist/communist, in our case the neo-communism of our DMNC. Despite these differences we can in many ways simply substitute our model into the deliberations of the Lenin era. It is rare that anyone left or right can navigate this history of the Russian Revolution. Our stance is that ‘if only’ the Bolsheviks/marxists had had a better vision of a socialist outcome on the grounds of democracy, markets, planning, state capitalism/a Commons, and the relationship of a revolutionary party to a democratic party. All that said this by the book article by marxists shows how we need to be wary of socialist realizations, in the context of revolution. Another issue is that of the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin correctly/incorrectly took this notion to heart and he must have thought there was no contradiction in his claim to take the stance he represented the working class. At the start the mysterious constellation of factors seems to justify that but the whole game ended in failure. The term should be retired. But as this article makes clear a truly tricky set of factors were at play and Lenin, often accused of a coup, in fact moved in the context of working class thematics and in terms of the actual orgs thus in the working class ‘soviets’ to seize the moment. In the end our DMNC version would confront this tricky navigation though a complex chess puzzle. It seems that Lenin was successful but then the limits of the Marxist model moved to derail the remarkable revolutionary fait-accompli. But the Marxist package was anemic and the result in the end was hardly a working class soon again the exploited victim in the victim in the coming of Stalin.The democratic failsafe wasn’t there.

We have and again yesterday confronted the worsening crisis and noted how the justification for revolution starts to creep back into the reformist complacency. Revolution is becoming a duty having just watched a fascist wannabee liquidate 600,000 citizens. But the elder situation is far different: Russia simply fell apart as the army nearly dissolved as soldiers threw down their rifles and trekked home, in the horror of World War I which was the real ‘revolution’ by accident. The American military will sooner move to fascism than radicalize and the issue of ecology in the era of global warming moves swiftly past Marxist cliches to demand a whole new rethinking. The future here could be a fascist military, liquidation of the left, and bunkers in Sweden for the capitalist remnant. Capitalist mass murder can now move from six hundred thousand to a hundred million.
Capitalism has ceased to take humanity forward. It should long ago have been overthrown by the working class.

Source: The class, the party and the leadership: How to organize revolution

 DMNC and the puzzle of the russian revolution

Although we have adopted a critique of Marxism, and stand wary at ‘theory’ the issues in the history of the left present a set of puzzles for our new perspective. We have spoken to both reformist and revolutionary viewpoints, but the reformist stance is misleading: we can stage a revolution via reformist stance, however unlikely, if ‘reform’ can move to change a constitution and/or expropriate capital. The latter seems implausible but nationalizations actually occurred in the English Labor era, etc…The revolutionary path is equally tricky and this article on the issue of revolution, and the case of Lenin present, and warn of the immensely tricky steps to any kind of socialist/communist, in our case the neo-communism of our DMNC. Despite these differences we can in many ways simply substitute our model into the deliberations of the Lenin era. It is rare that anyone left or right can navigate this history of the Russian Revolution. Our stance is that ‘if only’ the Bolsheviks/marxists had had a better vision of a socialist outcome on the grounds of democracy, markets, planning, state capitalism/a Commons, and the relationship of a revolutionary party to a democratic party. All that said this by the book article by marxists shows how we need to be wary of socialist realizations, in the context of revolution. Another issue is that of the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin correctly/incorrectly took this notion to heart and he must have thought there was no contradiction in his claim to take the stance he represented the working class. At the start the mysterious constellation of factors seems to justify that but the whole game ended in failure. The term should be retired. But as this article makes clear a truly tricky set of factors were at play and Lenin, often accused of a coup, in fact moved in the context of working class thematics and in terms of the actual orgs thus in the working class ‘soviets’ to seize the moment. In the end our DMNC version would confront this tricky navigation though a complex chess puzzle. It seems that Lenin was successful but then the limits of the Marxist model moved to derail the remarkable revolutionary fait-accompli. But the Marxist package was anemic and the result in the end was hardly a working class soon again the exploited victim in the victim in the coming of Stalin.The democratic failsafe wasn’t there.

We have and again yesterday confronted the worsening crisis and noted how the justification for revolution starts to creep back into the reformist complacency. Revolution is becoming a duty having just watched a fascist wannabee liquidate 600,000 citizens. But the elder situation is far different: Russia simply fell apart as the army nearly dissolved as soldiers threw down their rifles and trekked home, in the horror of World War I which was the real ‘revolution’ by accident. The American military will sooner move to fascism than radicalize and the issue of ecology in the era of global warming moves swiftly past Marxist cliches to demand a whole new rethinking. The future here could be a fascist military, liquidation of the left, and bunkers in Sweden for the capitalist remnant. Capitalist mass murder can now move from six hundred thousand to a hundred million.
Capitalism has ceased to take humanity forward. It should long ago have been overthrown by the working class.

Source: The class, the party and the leadership: How to organize revolution

 

I think that’s a right-wing and very conservative if not reactionary impulse. Stalin was the gravedigger of the revolution. Or as Trotsky put it, a river of blood separated Lenin from Stalin. The revolution was made by ordinary people in 1917 — first women, who then called workers into the streets. Eventually, the soldiers went over to the crowds, and you had a revolution. Tsarism was gone. In 1917, there was a euphoria of popular participation, committees, resolutions, and so forth.Ordinary people eventually have to go back home, make a living, take care of the kids, make dinner. Eventually, that democratic and participatory revolution was consumed by foreign intervention, the civil war, the breakdown of the economy, and the building, by the Bolsheviks, of a centralized, authoritarian state. If I write a second volume about Stalin, I’ll write about the period 1917 to the death of Lenin in 1924, about how the Soviet state was built, and how it turned from this more participatory, Paris Commune kind of ideal that you find in Lenin’s book State and Revolution into what eventually became a one-party state under Lenin, and eventually the Stalinist tyranny that destroyed most of the Leninist cadres in 1937.There should be no apology by people on the Left for Stalin. It’s true, of course, that he achieved many things: a forced, and quite crude, but successful industrial revolution, the literacy campaigns, the victory over fascism, the destruction of Nazism, the end of the Holocaust. But Stalinism was the nadir of the Soviet experiment. It was a bloody, ruthless period. It destroyed many of the important achievements that were won earlier. It made the country stupider by decapitating the party and decapitating the intelligentsia, and turning people into cogs, or little screws, as Stalin put it.Marxism and socialism are basically a democratic expansion of bourgeois liberal democracy. It’s the empowerment of ordinary people. Stalinism was the usurpation of power from the people, the decimation of the trade unions and the independence of ordinary people into a top-down dictatorship. Despite some of its achievements, it shouldn’t be celebrated.

Source: How Josef Stalin Became a Bolshevik