• 0 Post
  • 9 Comment
Joined 5M ago
Cake day: May 29, 2021


I generally agree, but I think more clarification is needed. Existing Liberal, Capitalist Democracies are not adequate vehicles for social change, but in the new state we seek to create, voting can play a major role.

One thing Tankies don’t understand is that the October Revolution was intended to be multi-party. The Bolsheviks saw a new, purer form of democracy not in their own party but in the Soviets, which were muti-party organizations. The first thing they did after seizing power was seek out coalition partners.

The single party state emerged not out of principal but out of a lack of willing partners. Everyone willing to stand by the Revolution had already become a Bolshevik. However, the party eventually fell into stagnation, factionalism, and revisionism. In the end, the system failed. It is worth critically reassessing this model, even while recognizing its historic origin and value. This means not rejecting existing single party states, but being open to alternatives and their potential advantages.

When capitalists still control the media, and more importantly, the production and finances of these countries, the method of voting has proven to be completely irrelevant.

Then the solution is to change those systems of power, not the voting.

Elections in capitalist governments do serve a vital purpose. They produce changes in the superstructure in response to changes in the base, allowing the state to adapt to changing conditions with minimal risk to its core functioning.

The perfect example is Social Democracy. Workers are getting uppity? A Liberal Democracy can ease conditions at the expense of the capitalist, without destroying capitalism. It’s the same thing with Brexit or an independence referendum. Address grievances early before they get out of control.

There’s a reason electoralism is considered the ideal capitalist system of governance, and why all long-lasting capitalist states have used it.

But those benefits are transferable. A socialist state, through elections, can determine the right time for major reforms, when to role back policies, and what issues need urgently addressed.

Capitalist states can allow for votes on policy, leadership, etc without compromising core principles. Why would a Socialist state be unable to do the same?

I would agree that the Revolution is democratic, but it’s a fallacy to assume the work ends with the seizure of power. History has shown that the proletarian state continues to exist for decades, not just as an administrative apparatus, but as a tool of class struggle against internal and external enemies, i.e. it exists as a political instrument, as a state in the full sense of the word. And when the proletarian state does disappear, its never been from the conclusion of the struggle, but from its failure.

Once a Revolutionary state has been established, it can not be counted on to stay Revolutionary forever. As both domestic and international circumstances change, it can become unrepresentative and undemocratic. Nor can further Revolution correct these errors without risking earlier achievement. That would be dangerous in the context of global Imperialism.

It’s therefore essential that workers have a genuine way to impart change within the state, at a sufficiently high level, that these methods be clearly presented to them, and that workers be allowed to organize for change without harassment by the existing authorities. A multiparty system is the ideal response.

This article is literally a Trot using statements by a SocDem as an excuse to bash other Trots. It’s not worth reading or discussing.

I think what this analysis misses is that Gorbachev’s desire for reform came from within the party. There was a growing recognition that the old way was no longer working.

While I understand that Gorbachev obviously failed and it’s easy to hate him for it, it’s not like another Brezhnev would have actually fixed anything. Some sort of reform was necessary. The USSR wasn’t keeping up with the West.

Every news site will report every major event, so you really you just need to choose one to follow regularly.

I’m mainly interested in the Middle East, so I check Al Jazeera daily. The output is manageable, not like a bunch of Western outlets that report on every tweet and non-issue, but they never miss anything actually important. Of course there’s bias, but it’s super obvious. More so than most. When there’s actually something I consider worth following, I check out more sites.