Is revolution ethical?

[Estro Felino]

Socialism literally means common or collective control over the means of production.
Russian "Bolshevism", by which you mean Marxist-Leninism, is just one of the many schools of socialism, but all socialist movements have in common that they seek to abolish capitalist control over the means of production.

This is why fascism is not socialism, no matter how they like to preen with their false, red feathers.

Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. This is a given.

 

[Kooky]

Socialism amd Communism are not the same thing. This is a given.

By which you mean, you can't actually construct an argument and couldn't find evidence to back you up.

 

[Estro Felino]

By which you mean, you can't actually construct an argument and couldn't find evidence to back you up.

The Italian Socialist Party was born in 1892.
Before the Russian Revolution.
Before Communism.

 

[Kooky]

The Italian Socialist Party was born in 1885.
Before the Russian Revolution.
Before Communism.

The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848.

The Communist Manifesto - Wikipedia

 

[Estro Felino]

The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848.

The Communist Manifesto - Wikipedia

Indeed.
And it was light years away from the ideology of the Italian Socialist Party of 1892.

 

[Kooky]

The Italian Socialist Party was born in 1885.

Indeed.
And it was light years away from the ideology of the Italian Socialist Party of 1892.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about one of its founders:

Costantino Lazzari - Wikipedia

Lazzari was the leader of the revolutionary wing of the Socialist Party, known as Massimalisti. In 1912 he was elected Secretary of the Socialist Party and led the party in the 1913 general election, where the PSI gained 17.6% of votes, arriving second after the governing Liberal Union of Giovanni Giolitti. In 1919 Lazzari resigned as Secretary.

In 1922 he was expelled from the PSI, accused of being a close ally of the new-established Communist Party.

One of the earliest founding members and long-term leaders of the PSI was a revolutionary socialist who would turn out to support Communism.

Here is another founding member of the PSI:

Anna Kuliscioff - Wikipedia

Anna Kuliscioff (Italian: [ˈanna kuliʃˈʃɔf]; Russian: Анна Кулишёва, IPA: [ˈanːə kʊlʲɪˈʂovə]; born Anna Moiseyevna Rozenshtein, Анна Моисеевна Розенштейн; 9 January 1857 – 27 December 1925) was a Jewish Russian revolutionary, a prominent feminist, an anarchist influenced by Mikhail Bakunin, and eventually a Marxist socialist militant. She was mainly active in Italy, where she was one of the first women to graduate in medicine.

It seems the most prominent woman in Italian socialism was a Marxist and a revolutionary.


And here Wikipedia writes about the PSI:

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the PSI quickly aligned itself in support of the Communist Bolshevik movement in Russia and supported its call for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is what Wikipedia has to say about one of its founders:

Costantino Lazzari - Wikipedia

One of the earliest founding members and long-term leaders of the PSI was a revolutionary socialist who would turn out to support Communism.

Here is another founding member of the PSI:

Anna Kuliscioff - Wikipedia

It seems the most prominent woman in Italian socialism was a Marxist and a revolutionary.


And here Wikipedia writes about the PSI:

That is why Bordiga and Gramsci decided to abandon the Socialist Party and to found a Italian Communist Party in 1921.
Because the differences were irreconcilable.

 

[Kooky]

That is why Bordiga and Gramsci decided to abandon the Socialist Party and to found a Italian Communist Party in 1921.
Because the differences were irreconcilable.

So if we follow your argument, Gramsci was not a socialist because he founded a different party, but Mussolini remained a "true" socialist even though he did the exact same thing a few years prior.

Why?

 

[Estro Felino]

So if we follow your argument, Gramsci was not a socialist because he founded a different party, but Mussolini remained a "true" socialist even though he did the exact same thing a few years prior.

Why?

I am an Italian...I know the history of my country.

The Duce was a socialist.

I also know that history is always written by the winners. The winners can write anything.

 

[osgart]

To me everything centers on control of the labor force, and the prevention of competing rivals for power. Outright revolution destabilizes society, and makes for a random wheel of chance as to which power would rise up to rule.

Capitalism can manifest socialism or fascism in how the powers regulate or rig the system. Socialists want to make capitalism work in favor of labor and the rights of workers and have no interest in the communist lies against socialism.

The trouble with increased labor protection, and rights for workers is that new rivals for power emerge from a strong middle class. Nobody wants to lose what they have, and power gained will do anything to preserve its own power. So it can be a vicious wheel of chance as to who falls into power.

Power has to be balanced between socialism and a more just conservatism. Right now the conservatives have become extreme, and fascism rears its ugly head. Extremes of either socialism or conservatism is not desirable imo.

Socialism brings new rivals to power if unchecked, and conservatism leads to fascism unchecked. America's strength is in its balance of power, and being able to check oppositions.

Unfortunately for a long time capitalist conservatism has increasingly rigged our value game.

The only revolution I would like to see is to let the popular vote decide elections, and do away with the electoral college, term limits for supreme court justices, and a hard line against lobbyists, and remove the filibuster. America is under assault from within, and this time it's the conservatives doing it since Reagan. I'd love to see the large socialist base of Americans take back the country.

It was never unreasonable to have healthcare, and education rights for all with a strong safety net for the poor, aging, and disabled. Never was it unreasonable to have labor protections, and worker's rights. It's time to end master/ slave powers prevalent in human nature. America was built on balances of power. Canada is quietly leading the way, and America is in an embarrassing condition.

In America we have the ability to have a civil revolution. Technology has potential to raise consciousness to the issues, and create a stronger power base. American ignorance is something that has to change as well. Bloody revolution is a wheel of chance.

 

[Estro Felino]

To me everything centers on control of the labor force, and the prevention of competing rivals for power. Outright revolution destabilizes society, and makes for a random wheel of chance as to which power would rise up to rule.

Capitalism can manifest socialism or fascism in how the powers regulate or rig the system. Socialists want to make capitalism work in favor of labor and the rights of workers and have no interest in the communist lies against socialism.

The trouble with increased labor protection, and rights for workers is that new rivals for power emerge from a strong middle class. Nobody wants to lose what they have, and power gained will do anything to preserve its own power. So it can be a vicious wheel of chance as to who falls into power.

Power has to be balanced between socialism and a more just conservatism. Right now the conservatives have become extreme, and fascism rears its ugly head. Extremes of either socialism or conservatism is not desirable imo.

Socialism brings new rivals to power if unchecked, and conservatism leads to fascism unchecked. America's strength is in its balance of power, and being able to check oppositions.

Unfortunately for a long time capitalist conservatism has increasingly rigged our value game.

The only revolution I would like to see is to let the popular vote decide elections, and do away with the electoral college, term limits for supreme court justices, and a hard line against lobbyists, and remove the filibuster. America is under assault from within, and this time it's the conservatives doing it since Reagan. I'd love to see the large socialist base of Americans take back the country.

It was never unreasonable to have healthcare, and education rights for all with a strong safety net for the poor, aging, and disabled. Never was it unreasonable to have labor protections, and worker's rights. It's time to end master/ slave powers prevalent in human nature. America was built on balances of power. Canada is quietly leading the way, and America is in an embarrassing condition.

In America we have the ability to have a civil revolution. Technology has potential to raise consciousness to the issues, and create a stronger power base. American ignorance is something that has to change as well. Bloody revolution is a wheel of chance.

You deserve 60 minutes of applauses

 

[osgart]

You deserve 60 minutes of applauses

Oh that's so cool. Thank you!

 

[Kooky]

I am an Italian...I know the history of my country.

You did not seem to know that the PSI was co-founded by two Marxists.

The Duce was a socialist.

Before he was kicked out of the PSI and became a fascist, yes.

I also know that history is always written by the winners. The winners can write anything.

There are no winners or losers in history, only the dead and those who are yet to die.

 

[Estro Felino]

You did not seem to know that the PSI was co-founded by two Marxists.


Before he was kicked out of the PSI and became a fascist, yes.


There are no winners or losers in history, only the dead and those who are yet to die.

This thread is about revolution, not about Socialism/Communism.

My point is: very soon the armies and the law enforcement will join the people and together they will fight the elites
I do not think these unarmed aristocrats who put themselves on a pedestal have any chance...against them.

 

[Kooky]

This thread is about revolution, not about Socialism/Communism.

Socialism is nothing if not revolutionary!

My point is: very soon the armies and the law enforcement will join the people and together they will fight the elites

And by "the people" you mean fascist parties that brutalize immigrant workers and enact anti-labor legislation, to which I objected because that would be neither a revolution, nor would it be of the people.

No fascist movement in history has ever been revolutionary, and they have consistently turned out to be the worst enemies of the working class to a fault.

 

[Augustus]

So you would cast the entire French Revolution, as well as the Russian Februar Revolution as the work of "hierarchical hardline elements"? I think that's a mistake and a serious inaccuracy.

There is a lot more to a revolution than simply "people are badly treated and rebel", and most revolutions run through distinct phases where different people sit at the helm.

For example, French Revolution infamously churned through factions and forms of government on an almost yearly basis, and the Russian Revolution is arguably a long continuum of political instability from 1917 to 1918 and beyond, with at least two very distinct changes in government (the February and October Revolutions of 1917, respectively).

I could expand on this argument if you're at all interested in talking about this particular leg of our discussion, just say when.

Of course there is more to it than a 20 word generalisation, but it is still the case that better organised, hierarchical hardline factions tend to take control of the process. We saw numerous examples throughout the Arab spring for example.

They also are good examples of how regime change is much easier than creating a new society where the required institutions and behaviours are not sufficiently developed to meet the desired society.

You don't think that revolutions tend to disproportionately benefit the extremes?

It's quite obvious that none of us actually has a clue what the average peasant thought or wanted, because they did not write their thoughts and publish them in books or newspapers.

What we can do is look for indications based on their actions.

And based on the fact that even after decades of repression Soviet peasants didn't want to give up their religion it's pretty clear evidence that they were fairly socially conservative and didn't buy into the radical Marxist ideologies of the elites.

I have found no evidence whether this is an accurate depiction of post-revolutionary Haitian agriculture. Would you mind pointing me to one of your sources?

Under fermage the land belonged to the government. It would be leased out to managers and worked by workers who were obligated to remain on the land in much the same way that serfs were in Europe. The workers, while bound to the land, did receive 25% of the value of the crops to divide among themselves, and housing, food, clothing and basic care. However, their lives were vigorously regulated and discipline was strict. While the old slave whip was gone, discipline did use the cocomacaque stick.

When Dessalines heard that Napoleon was to be made an emperor, he decided to do so too, and actually beat Napoleon to the coronation. On October 8, 1804 Jean-Jacques Dessalines became JACQUES I, EMPEROR. Unlike Henry Christophe a few years later, he did not create any other nobles, claiming that he alone was noble.

Perhaps that spirit characterizes much that went wrong with Dessalines. He was stern, even cruel, demanded unflinching obedience and ruled with an iron hand. This was not what most of the Haitian people thought that had fought a war of independence for, and discontent was widespread.

Aside from the massacre of the French, another of Dessalines' actions which had long-term affects was his invasion of Santo Domingo (today's Dominican Republic). He was able to rush across Santo Domingo toward the capital city, but was not able to take it, partially because of an accidental arrival of French ships. Eventually he had to withdraw. But the entire war had been so brutally effected by Dessalines and his troops that this laid the ground for the hatred between these two nations.

There was growing discontent with the rule of Jacques I. This was especially pronounced in the south and Dessalines march on the south to put things in order. On Oct. 17, 1806, just short of three years after independence, Emperor Jacques I was assassinated as he marched.

Haiti was now plunged into a chaotic period of political maneuvering and civil war that divided Haiti into two nations under two different leaders for the next 12 years.

Haiti:The Post-Revolutionary Period:1804-1820

 

[Estro Felino]

Socialism is nothing if not revolutionary!

And by "the people" you mean fascist parties that brutalize immigrant workers and enact anti-labor legislation, to which I objected because that would be neither a revolution, nor would it be of the people.

No fascist movement in history has ever been revolutionary, and they have consistently turned out to be the worst enemies of the working class to a fault.

Vox Populi, Vox Dei.

 

[Kooky]

Vox Populi, Vox Dei.

De omnibus dubitandum.

 

[Kooky]

Of course there is more to it than a 20 word generalisation, but it is still the case that better organised, hierarchical hardline factions tend to take control of the process.

Except nothing of the sort happened during the French Revolution, or else it would not have churned so quickly through government after government, each one purging its predecessors. Unless you want to argue that the moderate Girondists were a better organised, more hierarchical hardline faction than the Jacobins.

What you describe is what I would consider a feature of modern mass democracy, which is for this reason almost always ran along the lines of hierarchically organized political parties, though even there I would argue the deciding factors lie in effective and efficient organization rather than being "hardline".

We saw numerous examples throughout the Arab spring for example.

The Arab Spring largely failed to usher into successful revolutions.
What examples other than post-Mubarak Egypt can you even cite in that respect?

They also are good examples of how regime change is much easier than creating a new society where the required institutions and behaviours are not sufficiently developed to meet the desired society.

This is also true of creating new institutions via more peaceful reforms, such as the hypothetical constitution of a hypothetical French constitutional monarchy. Or are you forgetting that it took England a civil war and three royal dynasties until they managed to keep both a monarchy and a working constitution?

You don't think that revolutions tend to disproportionately benefit the extremes?

I don't think the historical record bears that out, no. Even the French Revolution did not benefit the extremes - the Jacobins lasted barely two years before they were purged from power and replaced by more moderate bourgeois governments, and later on an authoritarian conservative.

The October Revolution in Russia is one of the few prominent revolutions I can think of where the most radical faction managed to hold onto power longterm.

And based on the fact that even after decades of repression Soviet peasants didn't want to give up their religion it's pretty clear evidence that they were fairly socially conservative and didn't buy into the radical Marxist ideologies of the elites.

Is there a reason why you cut out the part where I pointed out the enormous support for socialist parties among the Russian people? I think you are unduly focused on the issue of religion when that was not considered a major political problem even among the Marxists in 1917-18, let alone the more popular SR movement or even the moderate bourgeois factions of the February Revolution.

If you look at the proclamations of Lenin's Bolsheviks in 1917, as well as the policies set by the urban Soviets (which until October 1917 were dominated by moderate socialists and SR) they almost exclusively focused on either economic issues (such as workplace democracy, the distribution of land and food etc.) or issues of political power (the armament of workers, autonomy of non-Russian nationalities etc.).

Haiti:The Post-Revolutionary Period:1804-1820

Thank you.

 

[Kooky]

EDIT: I just now realized that I confused the Girondists with the Thermidor Reaction.
Anyway, my point still stands.