Means to an End: Socialist v. Democratic Revolutions

Greetings all!

This post comes the weekend after the United States election, in which president Barack Obama was re-elected by a comfortable electoral margin. Many state ballot measures were also voted on, giving various failures and successes to both liberal and conservative movements in America. In good news, gay marriage laws have been approved in Maine and Maryland, while a Minnesota ban was removed. Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana use for those of age, and Massachusetts now allows weed for medicinal purposes. A ballot measure in Florida against Obamacare failed, while similar measures in Alabama, Wyoming, Montana, and Missouri passed. However, these measures against the health-insurance mandate are mostly moot, seeing as the Supreme Court ruled that the law is legal and therefore goes over the heads of state laws. However, this post concerns a topic of much more direct interest to communists, socialists, and the like. Today, I will be arguing the merits and pitfalls of both socialist and democratic revolutions for the purpose of communism. The question of which type of revolution to pursue has been one that plagues us on the left constantly, and here I intend to see what I can make of it. This week’s quote comes from Salvador Allende, the first democratically elected Marxist leader in Latin America, who gave a farewell speech not long before the coup against him.

Before I dive head first into the high and low points of socialist and democratic revolutions, they first must be defined, even within somewhat loose terms. The socialist revolution is often the one non-communists imagine when they think of a communist rebellion in their country. While a socialist revolution does not have to fit this imagery, it tends to lean in this direction. The path of a socialist revolution is often more likely to be violent, as it involves the complete and immediate takeover of the means of production by the workers. It involves the overthrow of bourgeois society and economic norms, creating a socialist state wherein the proletariat is placed in power. In some communist ideologies, this revolution is planned and led by a vanguard party which serves to direct the new socialist state through and after the revolution until true communism is achieved. If I must simplify it down to a point, this is the type of revolution where one is most likely to find the streets running red with the blood of the bourgeoisie. The best example I can present of a socialist revolution in history is one of the most well-known historical revolutions: the Russian Revolution. Specifically, I speak of the October Revolution, in which the Bolsheviks achieved power from the provisional government left in the wake of Tsar Nicholas II. This revolution is well-known; the Bolsheviks took power and began the first communist leadership structure that had staying power on a national scale. Eventually, once the Whites had been conquered by the Reds, the Soviet Union would come to be. This exemplifies the socialist revolution well, in that the overall speed with which the communist goals were achieved was quick, and the disestablishment of the former state occurred in a similar fashion. There was violence between the communist and anti-communist forces, and the consequences of such a revolution are more than apparent through history. However, the revolution was successful.

The democratic revolution is inherently a different means of achieving the end result, a communist state, of course with the same dream of the penultimate and perfect state resulting from such efforts. The democratic revolution takes a divergent path towards this goal, in that it cannot occur without major popular support. The democratic type requires that the populace of a nation desire a significant change of governance towards socialism/communism, and as such a revolution takes place. The idea of a democratic revolution is that the people are wise enough to choose communism for themselves, rather than requiring a socialist revolution to take place first. The people choose to rise up on their own, and they choose to abolish the old bourgeois state. The key of democratic revolution is just that; mass democracy. The hope is that people will learn what is best for them, and because of this they will make the choice of communism to better themselves. However, this type of revolution typically receives less belief and support among communists, often due to perceived problems with its mechanics. I will note these in the coming paragraphs. For this type, I select the Chilean election of 1970, in which a Marxist candidate, notably Salvador Allende, received a plurality and therefore a victory. While not necessarily a true democratic revolution, it is the closest example I can pull out at this time. The Chilean people selected a communist presidency, therefore choosing to remove the shackles of capitalism in their nation. While perhaps not a revolution, this is the closest I believe we’ve ever come to such a phenomenon.

And now, we come to the benefits and drawbacks to both socialist and democratic revolutions. Obviously on the former end, violence is an immediate drawback. A socialist revolution inherently has a tendency to draw bloodshed due to the immediacy with which the change is fostered, and often causes fighting or even war due to resistance by the bourgeois state and its military forces. Sometimes, the people of a nation will be scared or unprepared for such a revolution, and will willingly attempt to counter it with violence. Because a socialist revolution is not the kind of thing that can draw back and hope for better times to rebel, it is not uncommon for violence to be a result of it. Look at many of our historic socialist revolutions, and violence took place; Russia, China, Cuba, etc. Death and suffering occurred in all of these places, and was very much unavoidable given the circumstances. Socialist revolutions can also lead to much popular unrest, as chances are the majority of the population may not support a new regime in such a manner. This can lead to further war and can even lead to an overthrow of the new socialist regime, impairing progress. Meanwhile, a democratic revolution has an opposite set of issues. While much more likely to be successful as an end result, democratic revolutions have much more trouble occurring in the first place. They require an educated and willing populace, which is a wholly uncommon situation. A democratic revolution also requires that the military of the state be either sided with the communists or be unable to stop the revolution. If the state can simply shoot down its opposition, chances are it will. Because a democratic revolution is meant to be nonviolent, it would only hurt popular viewpoints of the revolution for its supporters to carry weaponry. The democratic revolution also leaves open a hole in that it sets no particular function in place to rule a nation after the revolution ends. Socialist revolutions tend towards support of a vanguard party; while a democratic revolution can do the same, those that support democratic revolutions are less likely to suggest a vanguard party. I know I wouldn’t be the first to point out a vanguard option when there are other means of governance.

Now, we come to the good sides of each revolutionary model. The socialist revolution, in its immediacy and potency, is considerably more viable and quicker than a democratic revolution. While a socialist revolution very well may draw bloodshed out of its opponents, it is through this will to fight that the revolution is made easier to prepare for. While most leftists would prefer to see less death in the wake of progress, those willing to see it occur will inevitably have a heavier hand in revolutions. Because the socialist revolution is more strong-willed and backed with power, it can often be achieved whether the state is willing to fight or not. One thing I hear from communists hoping for socialist revolution often is this: “Better to have guns and not need them, than to need them and not have them.” This is something reflected in the words of Che Guevara, a great communist revolutionary, who once said something along these lines. “A revolution without guns? It would never work.”

Meanwhile, the democratic model presents multiple benefits as well. A democratic revolution presents significant opportunity for a peaceful transition to communism instead of a violent one where people suffer and die, where families are broken. A democratic revolution also promises a significantly higher chance of staying power; with the majority of the populace supporting the new regime, coup d’états are wildly less likely to occur. With popular support also comes the opportunity to resist international influences on the revolution, along with the opportunity to move quickly on governmental reform. Popular support also ensures a level of stability to a new communist state that a socialist revolution may not be able to provide. I personally would much rather see a democratic revolution take place due to my opposition to violent means to any end. If I were to support a violent socialist revolution, I would risk becoming a hypocrite of my own words. If I am to criticize America for supporting violent capitalism, I generally see it as wrong for myself to support violent socialism, except when absolutely necessary.

That is all for this week, and once again I’ll be noting the upcoming changes to this blog. The URL and name of this blog will be changing at the beginning of the next year to reflect my name change to KnoFear. As I said last week, this is inevitable. As always, I am available for contact through zerospintop@live.com, Facebook, Google+, Twitter, DeviantArt, Steam, and Tumblr. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.  

The Great Lie: Failure of Free-Market Capitalism

Greetings all!

This post comes amid a hectic flurry for me. Last weekend, there was no post due to fears during Hurricane Sandy and strong amounts of schoolwork as my first quarter came to a close. I had originally intended to post this topic then, and then to finish October properly this weekend. However, I scrapped those plans in view of the special time with which I am posting in. Tomorrow is the presidential election date for America, and much of our future is determined tomorrow. Because of this, I felt it proper to close October in a less traditional style for this blog, and instead of doing two posts do just one. While tomorrow we decide whether we want a liberal in power or a conservative, we shall still decide within the boundaries of capitalism. Here, I intend to show a portion of why capitalism itself is a poor choice to make. This week’s quote comes from Noam Chomsky, a leftist critic of many years whom I admire.

Moving on, this post is not made to argue strictly for communism. I will solely argue against capitalism, however this will be done through a leftist vein. The main point of this post is to focus on the greatest lie capitalist societies teach us. That we can do whatever we want to if we work hard; that we can become anything we desire. Capitalism says that we can get filthily rich if we try, and that we all have an equal chance in capitalist society. This is wildly untrue. So much of your success is not determined by effort, but by wealth and connections. If you are born with rich parents, your chances of success are increased exponentially. You have access to better schools, a childhood not plagued by monetary problems, and connections in industry that the poor can only dream of. The top 1% is just that; one percent of our population. Capitalists may say that with 308 million people in America, 1% is still a large amount of people. Relatively speaking, it isn’t. Especially when you realize just how much worse the wealth gap is here, and elsewhere in the world. Because capitalism lies to us in this way, it is not worth the trouble of its existence. We would prosper much faster and in a more equal way without it; capitalism is a system of the past now. It is time to take the next step.

And now, we move on to my supplementary arguments. First, I’d like to note that capitalism inherently takes away from mass democracy and economic rights. This is mostly done through multinational corporations and their leaders. Look at the election; oil corporations and big banks have all but bought our president for us. Through political ads and direct threats to their employees, this campaign has been very much tainted by the business of voting. That is what this democracy has very much become; a system where even the government is a business. No government should function that way. A corporation or business has a duty to protect its CEOs and shareholders first; employees and customers be damned. That corporation or business must operate on a strict budget or be destroyed. And if it is destroyed, most businesses give huge going-away presents to their CEOs and nothing to the common worker. Does this sound ideal for a country? A country has its first duty to its citizens. A country must work not to better the lives of its legislators, but to better the lives of all. A country must defend its people, and a deficit is not of huge concern to a country because government should not be out to profit. That is the job of the private sector, not the public. A government should not foster wealth inequality; nothing should. The job of government is to ensure that the people are not starving on the streets without money for food.

My next point centers on exploitation. Let’s take an example in the form of a common factory worker. At the beginning, this worker had hopes and dreams. As a child, he or she likely wished to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a famous movie star. However, because they did not have wealth as a child and were not extraordinarily smart, they were not able to achieve the education they needed. Without college or connections, they were forced into blue-collar labor at a factory, where they make a measly salary for harsh work without many benefits. If the corporation that owns the factory gets enough profits, it willingly downsizes its workforce to cut away the payment of salaries and benefits it no longer desires. The worker is now unemployed, suffering every day, and there’s a good chance he’ll become homeless. And as an employee, he was not much better off. His product was not what he created in that factory, but rather it was his labor. He was selling his physical energy just to sustain himself in society. In this way, he prostituted himself to the bourgeoisie just to survive. While not a slave in the traditional sense of the word, he is not free. And he is not the only one. Countless people in America and worldwide suffer in the same way as this worker drone, and it is the fault of capitalism that such exploitation occurs. It’s disgusting as it is, and was only worse for people during the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, much of the developing world still suffers in the way laborers suffered in newly industrial Britain and Japan. Because we have other options which do not exploit workers in the same fashion, we have a duty to remove capitalism. It is in humanity’s own interest to prevent exploitation and suffering; this is simple evolutionary fact. We must protect and provide for our race because we have the ability to do so. Capitalism is no longer necessary for that, so it must be removed.

Third, capitalism inevitably fosters imperialism and therefore suffering in one way or another. Initially, this was very easy to see and most historians agree on it. At the inception of capitalism as a global force and throughout the Industrial Revolution, the empires in Europe and Japan spread their influence over the world. This drove the populace of colonized areas into deep submissive poverty, forcing them to produce raw goods and purchase high-priced finished products. Entire native populations were literally enslaved and subjugated to do this, causing global suffering on unprecedented scales. People were beaten and killed, all while comparatively nothing was done for the greater good of humanity. Capitalists may say that the progress in technology, medicine, etc. makes up for this suffering, especially in light of the fact that it does not exist as much today. However, this is not even true. Slavery does still exist today, and it very much is just as bad as the past. Even though those technological breakthroughs have occurred and education has become better, these things do not occur because of capitalism. I’m certain if you ask the creators of great vaccines, the creators of great innovations, that they will not tell you they did these things solely for money. Take Dr. Jonas Salk for example; he created the vaccine for polio. He didn’t do it for the profit; that wasn’t even on his mind. He wanted to help cure a deadly disease for mankind’s greater good, and this is why he claimed no patent on his vaccine. Instead, he preferred it given away to people as much as it could. He wanted to help remove a deadly disease, not make money. Even as he aged, he didn’t look for profit; instead, he tried to find a cure for AIDS. My point is as follows. Capitalism is not responsible for these advances; people are responsible for these advances. The good nature of some human hearts is enough to cause progress, with or without capitalism in place. Therefore, because capitalism hurts people along the way, it is not worth its existence and omnipresence. It should be removed. Don’t worry; progress can very much happen without it.

My next point concerns market failure and instability. Market failure is often described as the failure of capitalist society to produce enough quality goods and services for all people. Market instability is the tendency for capitalist nations to experience periods of growth, followed by recession and suffering. Even in these periods of decline, the rich rarely suffer at all. In fact, they are often responsible for this decline and sometimes benefit from it disproportionately. Market failure on the other hand is best shown through the case of India. In India, hundreds of millions of people are starving, and yet the country is a big food exporter. Shouldn't India feed its own suffering masses before the well-to-do in other nations? I rest my case on this issue.

And now, we come to the last two points I wish to make, notably sustainability and inefficiency. As a system, capitalism not only exploits workers, but it also exploits our planet. Through industrialization and negligence, our Earth has become wildly polluted. Many species have gone extinct, and humanity increasingly finds itself presented with the dangers of a warmer world. The evidence is overwhelming; the Earth has warmed considerably in recent years, and our pace is not slowing sufficiently. The danger of this is obvious; storms will increase in strength and number while general sustainability of the planet will decline with pollution. We cannot live in a world which becomes a desert without much produce. Humanity is growing; we need more food, and a healthier environment if we wish to avoid mass starvation and disease. On the issue of inefficiency, this is clear in many common households of America. We have recycling bins, but most of us don’t use them as much as we should and often use them improperly. We are a very lazy people; there’s a reason we rarely have voter turnout beyond fifty percent. We’re also a very obese people, not just due to genetics and the availability of fast food, but because we’re often too lazy to change small things in our diets. This inefficiency and waste is promoted by capitalism; how many commercials do you see promoting vegetables as compared to those promoting McDonald’s? The ratio is ridiculous, especially because the number of commercials for legitimately healthy foods is almost zero.

That is about it for now, even though I didn’t cover some topics in full, including property and inequality. But you probably know my views on that already if you’re a regular reader. I’d also like to announce something here as well. At the beginning of the next year, this site will undergo two critical changes. First, the name of this site will be changed. My name on this site is no longer “SuperJew McLovin,” so the URL will be switched to KnoFear. The usual blogspot.com will follow, of course. KnoFear reflects more of who I am and is my universal name on many sites, so I’ll be using it instead. The name of the blog will be switched from “A Nerd’s Life” as well. This blog no longer reflects my original intentions of being a daily blog about my life, but instead reflects my political beliefs. As such, the name will likely be changed to some awful pun about communism or something like that. This message will be repeated at each blog post until then to remind all of you about the impending changes. I hope I won’t lose any of my readers with this change, and such is why I will say this message over and over again. I wish to avoid confusion. And now good night, and this is KnoFear signing off. Remember to vote!