My point was how the Russian Revolution evolved is best determined by it's environment, the material conditions in Russia and the world at the time, what is your explanation?

i-baster wrote:
There's been countless revolutions.
Evolutionary changes have only ever come with advances in education and technology unless you want to turn the clock back far enough to mark physical evolution..something which occurred long before recorded history.

Guevarista wrote:
That makes a bit more sense but its still basically inevitable that any socio-economic system is ALWAYS going to adhere to the prevailing paradigm of profit. This hasn't changed in a hell of a long time and is not likely to as there are no nation states that are truly independent of each other, they rely on global trade for resources and the bankers set the rules for this trade in the money that they dictate.
More importantly, people are always looking to leaders to fix their problems, this is why authoritarianism also prevails, despite all the decisions being made in the wrong way again and again and again. Man will never force his paradigm on nature.
Mother nature just sits there and dispassionately watches us fail until we learn our lesson.

Money,politics,nation states,companies,religions...these are all artificial man made things.
They have nothing to do with the real world and ultimately the universe. They are at odds with it. As long as we are at odds with nature then we will fail. It might take 100 years or 1000 but the end result is inevitable. Extinction.

Mother nature will try again elsewhere. She has billions of years to keep trying.


As for what is left/right? Just differences of economic opinion between authoritarians.

From progress to reactionen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

Guevarista wrote:
My point is that for a bunch of people who have assumed dominance over the masses and who abandon their theories and principles in favour of sitting atop a pyramid to put it down to being due to external forces, is a cop out. If not a blatant falsehood.

andyh wrote:
How about evolution of the mind? Guevarista mentioned evolution and revolution and you pointed out the obvious so I thought it might be important to also point out the obvious.

indeed.

i-baster wrote:
What do you think education and technology is all about???

andyh wrote:
What are you talking about?

i-baster wrote:
Evo­lu­tion­ary changes have only ever come with advances in edu­ca­tion and tech­nol­ogy unless you want to turn the clock back far enough to mark phys­i­cal evolution..something which occurred long before recorded history.

Are you really that daft?

Evolution
I don`t think there is any reason for name calling.

You're both great posters.

mikey mikey wrote:
Would you hang me on your bedroom wall?

I wouldn't hang anybody. I oppose the death penalty.

Especially not my friends.

dubmeup wrote: I think your use of the analogy is redundant, I doubt the Egyptians were fighting a civil war when they built the pyramids.

Can you please give me one example of this:
"(socialism in) prac­tice being a pyra­mid stand­ing on it’s base, the pro­le­tariat."
I want to know on what example you are judging the whole potential of socialism, i want to know whether the country you base your opinion on had freedom and material abundance to achieve socialism, and if so how it failed?

i-baster wrote:
Hardly. I just find it bizarre to repeat with different words what I already said and then somehow pretend like its different.

The evolution we are referring to here is human and the two types we commonly refer to are either physical or mental.

What was previously mentioned is that 'revolution could lead to evolution' yet it plainly has not, despite numerous revolutions which are always the same deal. Co-opted, infiltrated, controlled because mankind has yet to learn a lesson which will not be taught through repetition.
We have a word for doing the same thing over and over again and somehow each time expecting a different result, its called madness.

Guevarista wrote:
Since when is that ever going to happen with a revolution or some unions? lol
Socialism as it is today is really obviously an authoritarian model, governance was distinctly authoritarian in the past just as it is now.
Being involved in it, only encourages it.
The elite recognised all this donkeys years ago, you're miles behind them. They're already working on shutting the door of opportunity forever and you're sat talking about stuff that has been going on for centuries.

There are basically three modes of anarchist thought for 'solution' if you want to call it that.

1. Violent uprising. (which will probably be co-opted before it gets anywhere and everyone involved will end up dead/injured/incarcerated etc etc unless it involves literally millions of people, if you 'win' what happens afterwards- usually yet more laws and regulations anew hence co-opted)

2. Creation of a separate state. (requires bloody massive initial investment and effort)

3. Individual non-violent non-cooperation and participation with the system and co-operation with like minded individuals (weak, small scale, unlikely to change much other than for individuals involved). On the plus side, this is at least 'moral'.

Anarchists do not believe in political participation in a system designed to keep people in line in the first place for a few extra crumbs. Socialism as it is today is basically about whining and griping and petitions to pretend that people are somehow getting something extra for it. The crumbs are there to shut you all up and keep you stupid.

You are correct to mention that abundance would lead to something fantastic, but who is going to work towards that abundance and how? Such a situation cannot arise except perhaps with option 2 for many and option 3 for a few.

Option 3 is basically how the elite have managed what they have. They have created laws and regulations which favour their group and we have stupidly agreed to it.

Option 2 would be something like the venus project in a remote part of the world with a large initial investment and effort as mentioned. Only extremely dedicated and well educated and skilled people could ever accomplish it and I doubt they will be left alone to do it either.

Well the thing about evolution is that it happens over a very long time. Almost imperceptible.

At the risk of being accused of wearing rose-tinted specs: the last half of the twentieth century has seen rapid change for the better in terms of personal freedoms and social justice.

However, one must be careful with the model for social change as "evolution". This is indeed the Marxist model. However, all indicators suggest that these developements are cyclical.
The talk of "turning the clock back" by TPTB betray the underlying prioiri that Time will eventually lead to progress. Maybe we were a but wiser in the Renaisance, having just exited the Middle Ages, when we spoke of the Wheel of Fortune turning from rise to fall as it revolves.

Certainly the terms "progress" in the mouths of bankers, Tories, wingnuts and the "libertarian" friends is not the progress that one might think. Same with the word "growth": try to imagine the "financial expert" is actually a consultant in Oncology.

mikey mikey wrote:

The internet has been the biggest blessing of all imho.
Without it there is no alternate thought other than what is presented by approved published media.