>No argument from me on that. But we - you & I & most of the people on this
>list, though not all - live in rich countries with long histories of
>bourgeois democracy. It's kind of pointless to talk about Russia in 1917 as
>a model for the U.S. in 1999, just as the U.S. in 1999 is a pretty poor
>model for Russia in 1917.
I didn't mean to imply that 1917 Russia should be a model for the US today, or vice versa. But libertarian socialism can serve as a model, or at least a point of comparison, for any society.
>>that they should be criticized just as much for their use of coersion and
>>exploitation and anti-democratic institutions as capitalist societies.
>>Having your choices limited to Soviet-style communism or US-style
>>capitalism is just as bad as being limited to a choice between Bush and
>>Clinton (or Bush and Gore, as the case may be in 2000).
>
>That's absolutely not my intention, to set up some forced choice binary
>like that. I'm arguing that a serious evaluation of the Soviet or Chinese
>experience isn't served by caricatures from either side, either the Cold
>Warriors one or the CPUSA's.
I didn't mean to accuse you of doing so - I was merely making a general statement which wasn't aimed at you specifically. I agree with your evaluation.
>>As for the argument that (to paraphrase) the KGB was necessary to
>>counterbalance subversion by the West, I'm not buying it. The Soviet Union
>>had nukes and a big army
>
>Not in 1917 they didn't.
Maybe not, but the Bolsheviks did manage to win the civil war. The question is, could they also have won without becoming so authoritarian? The experience of the Spanish anarchists suggests the answer is yes. In fact, the stuff I've read about the Russian revolution claims the Bolsheviks were more tolerant of other socialists during the fighting and didn't crack down on them until power was more firmly in their hands.
>>- the US couldn't have its way there like it could
>>in Central and South America. The Soviet population was treated that way
>>so the Soviet elite would stay in power, not because it was necessary to
>>meet the "capitalist threat" (although I'm sure that was the official
>>reasoning in the USSR, just like the Soviet threat served as the official
>>rationale for spending large sums on defense in the US during the cold war).
>
>Of course. The nomenklatura was a ruling class that appropriated social
>resources for their own comfort and power. But I think people should really
>think seriously about how a revolutionary or even seriously reformist
>regime could ever sustain itself with the CIA gunning for it, and
>international capital shunning it.
But isn't one reason the US cracks down so hard on independent-minded foreign governments the fear of a successful example? Why such a reaction unless there is a possibility a successful example which can be copied by others? I certainly hope these fears are someday realized. But in any case, I don't see any point to "destroying the revolution in order to save it," i.e. becoming authoritarian and betraying the ideals you profess to uphold in order to maintain power. Such a government might be better than the neoliberal alternative, but it isn't really socialism either. Perhaps its a required intermediate phase, but I'm not convinced of that.
>>Either you have a libertarian (in the classic sense) democracy or you
>>don't.
>
>Talk about false binaries....
Why is this the case? It is perfectly rational to judge institutions based on whether they encourage and foster socialist ideals or not. Looking at China and Russia, it is clear they don't have a democratic society. The US economic system is rigidly hierarchical, and fails the same test, and so on. Institutions either pass or fail the test.
You have to start with some set of principles and ideals that you deem important. Otherwise, how can you argue that socialism is to be preferred to capitalism in the first place? What is it that makes it better?
I believe in libertarian socialist ideals - therefore that's the benchmark I use to judge different systems. Does a societies' institutional structure promote democratic decision making? Does it promote solidarity and economic equality? If so, I give them high marks. If not, they get low marks.
Brett