Re: [ox-en] Re: Collective Consciousness and Reaching the Utopian Society
- From: Marco Ermini <markoer firenze.linux.it>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:21:46 +0100
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 01:39:43 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]
"Nadav Har'El" <nyh math.technion.ac.il> wrote:
Hi all!
[...]
The situation with Stalin is even more complicated, because Stalin's party
(if not Stalin itself) were actually setting out to give more rights to
the people (obviously, they failed miserably). If I remember correctly,
many educated people and intellectuals supported the October revolution.
Yes, they are. Comparing to the contemporary political class, Stalin itself
was long better "educated" than many today's premier ;-)
The way in which stalininsm could impose itself over the egualitarian
attitudes is a great deal for a discussion still today. Stalin had all the
"real" bolshevicks shut off or put them in the condition to stay quietly from
his side (except the left opposition and Trockji, but they was unable to
"drag" to their side the personalities that "counts" in the immediate events
of the Stalinism advent, in the "Termidoro", and this was decisive). Not only
fine educated bolshevick (think about people like Probajenskij - hope to write
it well - or others) was killed by Stalin or put quietly in a position in
which thay could not be heard (and then killed...), but also all the great
"maitree a penser" in the West Europe which was supporters of the 1917's
revolution (think about Berthold Bretch and many others) was put in a
condition to shut off about what was really happening in the USSR. The fact
that we had the fascism gaining power was coercitive to stay from the USSR
side inconditionally, so this pharadoxally strengthen the Stalin's power. Yes
it is really a complex matter to look at (and hope you may overlook at my bad
english and get the point)
[...]
Even the Simpsons (a cartoon, not a great source, but nevertheless) had
an episode where a bunch of intellectuals got control of city hall, and
started making all sort of crazy (but supposedly based on their intellect)
laws - much worse than the laws the previous mayor - a stupid, self-serving
and corrupt person - had ever passed.
If you want a better example about what's happened in the USSR, maybe "The
Animal Farm" from George Orwell is a good one ;-)
This is why democracy stands on two pillars (one is NOT enough, contrary
to common belief):
1. Elections.
Giving the presidency (or prime-ministership, or whatever) to the person
or party based on votes doesn't matter much in 49%-51% cases like the
Gore-Bush elections. It matters when 80% of the people see a horrible
leader (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc.) destroying their country
and want to have him replaced.
Of course, voting must be fair - once people are afraid to vote against
their leader even though they don't want him, this is no longer a
democracy. Iraq had so-called elections, and if I remember correctly, 99%
of the voters voted for Saddam (of course, he had no opposition) - I
don't think this makes Iraq a democracy.
Like what happens in Romania before 1990, with Ceausescu, which gets 99,5%
everytime ;-)
I got your point of course. From my point of view, just "voting" it's not
enought. I think you have to share the power more deeply and not just
"delegate" to someone more or less representative.
bye
--
Marco Ermini
http://www.markoer.org
Perche' perdere tempo ad imparare quando l'ignoranza e' istantanea? (Hobbes)
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/