Back

@MikeDunnAuthor

Marx, in his "The Civil War in France," listed several reasons why the Paris Commune failed. Among them was their lack of a centeralized leadership that prevented them from effectively coordinate their efforts against government forces, their underestimation of the strength and determination of the French bourgeoisie and the state, their lack of a solidified, revolutionary party structure, and a server lack of ideological unity within the Commune. 1/2 #communism #socialism

@MikeDunnAuthor

All of the problems that the Paris Commune faced were recognized and properly prepared for in the Bolshevik Revolution 46 years later. 2/2
#communism #socialism

@Radical_EgoCom @MikeDunnAuthor

The patriarchalization of the 1871 effort did not lead to a better situation in the long run, though.

Have a look at Russia now: the ultimate 'strong man' is in power. And is destroying the country.

@northernlights @MikeDunnAuthor

I have no idea what you mean by "patriarchalization." What the Bolsheviks did was recognized the many flaws and mistakes the Paris Commune committed and made sure not to repeat them by having centeralized leadership, cohesive party structure, strict ideological unity, etc. There's nothing about that involving patriarchy.

@Radical_EgoCom @MikeDunnAuthor

Really? You don't recognize the similarity between the Bolshevik remedy and the military (a notable patriarchal institution), as compared with the decentralised Commune featuring prominent women leaders?

@northernlights @MikeDunnAuthor

The decentralized nature of the Commune is part of the reason it failed, so there's no need to replicate that aspect of the Commune for future socialist experiments unless some radical and spontaneous change in our material reality and in human behavior occurs, which seems unlikely. The Bolsheviks did make great strides compared to other countries in their time in female empowerment, but they were lacking in prominent female leadership,... 1/2

@northernlights @MikeDunnAuthor

...an area that was in need of much improvement, but overall, obviously, the Russian socialist experiment, which lasted 70 years, was far more successful than the Paris one, which only lasted 2 months, so if we as socialists should be replicating and improving on either of these, it should be the more historically successful one, the Russian Bolshevik experiment. 2/2

@Radical_EgoCom @MikeDunnAuthor

My eyes are rolling so hard my head hurts.

You cannot define as successful the Soviet Union simply because its government lasted for 70 years. The quality of life of the people matters as well. Hello, Stalin and the Holodomar.

The failure of the Soviet govt was largely due to its attempt to impose a decentralised social structure while maintaining a heavy-handed central authority. The Paris Commune failed thanks to military conquest.

Without ...

1/

@Radical_EgoCom @MikeDunnAuthor

... military opposition, the Paris Commune may have lasted until today (nobody knows). However, the Soviet Union ate itself.

Communes and coops tend to have much longer lives than forced compliance.

2/2

@northernlights @MikeDunnAuthor

The quality of life of the people of the Soviet Union increased greatly compared to Tzarist Russia. Literacy rate grew exponentially, women were allowed free and equal education and the right to vote, which were denied to them previously, as well as the right to divorce, i.e., a shift away from the patriarchal societal norms of Tsarist Russia, there was a system of universal healthcare implemented, which was a substantial... 1/4

@northernlights @MikeDunnAuthor

...improvement over the often limited access available under Tsarist rule. Yeah, I'm not just saying the Soviet Union was successful just because it lasted 70 years, but also, a socialist society being able to stay in existence for more than 2 months is a sign of success because it doesn't matter how good the principles are of the socialist society if it can't actually exist and sustain itself against the... 2/4

@northernlights @MikeDunnAuthor

...inevitable onslaught of bourgeois attacks that every socialist experiment WILL face and has faced every time.

"Without military opposition, the Paris Commune may have lasted until today."

Buddy, literally every single socialist experiment has faced military opposition and every future socialist experiment is likely to face it as well. 3/4

@northernlights @MikeDunnAuthor

If a socialist experiment is so incompetent that it can't face military opposition, which is inevitable, then it isn't worth any socialists time outside of analyzing it to discover its flaws so future experiments don't inherent the same flaws. 4/4

@Radical_EgoCom @MikeDunnAuthor

Perhaps.

Your point seems to be that a decentralised social order cannot defend itself against a (military) hierarchy, so central command (inevitably male) is necessary.

I have understood until now that shared resources based on decentralised decision-making was a characteristic of socialism.

Perhaps I've been mistaken and socialism is only the enforced, even militarily-enforced authority of a central government over the responsible masses.

Unappealing.

@northernlights @MikeDunnAuthor

You make a lot of assumptions when you shouldn't be. Centeral command is necessary, but it doesn't have to be male-led. A democratic centeral commitee made up of various genders, sexes, races, sexual orientations, and other backgrounds where there isn't one sole leader, but a national congress where members are elected every few years could make up the centeral command.

@Radical_EgoCom @MikeDunnAuthor

Yeah, It's the 'command' aspect of this that I dislike. I'm much bigger on cooperation.

Maybe I should take a second look at sociocracy.

@northernlights @MikeDunnAuthor

You should really decide which political ideology you align with based on facts, not feelings. You FEEL like something more decentralized would be better, but the FACTS of history show that decentralized revolutionary efforts against capitalism have a much lower success rate than centeralized ones.