|
rudatron posted:he advocated permanent revolution (something that's just not technically feasible) and a lot of groups that identify as 'troskyist' have a nasty little habit of practicing entryism, which is basically where you join a small activist group, take over the leadership, and then divert its resources to your own book club or whatever Permanent revolution was a programme in the context of the Soviet Union's early days: it was advocacy of outwards expansion by intervening on the side of fellow revolutionaries in Hungary, Germany etc. Rather similar to the actual policy pursued after the Second World War. It's not literally having a revolt every day for eternity. The ruling clique under Stalin instead went with Socialism in One Country, ie building up domestic heavy industries to reduce reliance on other countries. This was why they imported American architects to design Ford factories, and Alaskan gold mining engineers, for example. Shame a lot of them got shot in the purges. Enjoy fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Dec 29, 2016 |
# ? Dec 29, 2016 01:48 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 14:20 |
|
quote:But first, we need to clear something up, because every time I post theory for liberating a country in a half-revolution, I get the same comments asking over and over what it means, even though I have a whole paragraph in the introduction explaining it, which even starts with "if you're wondering what a half-revolution is, read this before commentating to ask". But maybe what you guys need isn't a paragraph. Maybe you guys need an EXAMPLE.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 02:02 |
I'm not sure what all that meant but Lichtenstein is a loving rad name
|
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 02:52 |
|
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 02:59 |
|
No! ! !
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 03:23 |
|
God drat
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 03:49 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFoC3TR5rzI
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 03:49 |
|
Enjoy posted:Permanent revolution was a programme in the context of the Soviet Union's early days: it was advocacy of outwards expansion by intervening on the side of fellow revolutionaries in Hungary, Germany etc. Rather similar to the actual policy pursued after the Second World War. The reason that idea is goofy and wouldn't work, is because it'd practically put the Soviet Union in a forever war with the entire planet, and no country is capable of keeping that up - especially not a country which was agrarian and had as little industry as the SU. The Fascists attempted a forever war and it didn't work out.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 04:11 |
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The reason that idea is goofy and wouldn't work, is because it'd practically put the Soviet Union in a forever war with the entire planet, and no country is capable of keeping that up - especially not a country which was agrarian and had as little industry as the SU. The idea was more like the USSR helping the PRC win their civil war, but with Germany and the former Austrian Empire. Big difference between outsiders helping a revolution, and the genocide campaigns of the Nazis.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 04:25 |
|
Enjoy posted:The idea was more like the USSR helping the PRC win their civil war, but with Germany and the former Austrian Empire. Big difference between outsiders helping a revolution, and the genocide campaigns of the Nazis. The USSR helped the communists win in China because they occupied Manchuria as an ally against Imperial Japan. You can't just keep invading countries to install communist governments without a drat good excuse. The Soviets tried exporting revolution even during the civil war, and they got about as far as Warsaw before having a major setback. If you take an official footing of permanent revolution then you're inviting a First Coalition scenario with machineguns, barbed wire, and massed artillery.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 04:42 |
Supporting communism is a good excuse imo
|
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 04:43 |
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The USSR helped the communists win in China because they occupied Manchuria as an ally against Imperial Japan. You can't just keep invading countries to install communist governments without a drat good excuse. The Soviets tried exporting revolution even during the civil war, and they got about as far as Warsaw before having a major setback. If you take an official footing of permanent revolution then you're inviting a First Coalition scenario with machineguns, barbed wire, and massed artillery. Trotsky's idea seems vindicated given that SIOC led to said genocide campaigns being able to gather strength and strike first.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 04:48 |
|
Homework Explainer posted:my phone knows the deal my phone needs some re-education
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 05:03 |
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Supporting communism is a good excuse imo it's not a practical policy, the strategy and tactics of any socialist organization must be flexible to the current times and demands of the day, dogged attachment to any one strategy is simply inviting failure
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 05:26 |
|
There's also the moral issues with interfering in a country through a political movement that does not have popular legitimacy or support from the majority of the population. If socialism is to work, it must be democratic, ergo it cannot be forced on any population unless and until a majority of that population actually supports it, ideologically. If they don't, they'll simply vote to repeal it.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 05:31 |
|
rudatron posted:There's also the moral issues with interfering in a country through a political movement that does not have popular legitimacy or support from the majority of the population. If socialism is to work, it must be democratic, ergo it cannot be forced on any population unless and until a majority of that population actually supports it, ideologically. If they don't, they'll simply vote to repeal it. Agreed. This is why I reject Marxism-Leninism, and the legacy of the Bolsheviks.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 05:34 |
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The USSR helped the communists win in China because they occupied Manchuria as an ally against Imperial Japan. You can't just keep invading countries to install communist governments without a drat good excuse. The Soviets tried exporting revolution even during the civil war, and they got about as far as Warsaw before having a major setback. If you take an official footing of permanent revolution then you're inviting a First Coalition scenario with machineguns, barbed wire, and massed artillery. Worked fine for the French. Sounds like communists lack courage in their convictions.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 05:37 |
|
Yeah, about that, there was this battle at a place called Waterloo...
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 05:39 |
|
That was five coalitions later. e: I hosed up, six coalitions later. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Dec 29, 2016 |
# ? Dec 29, 2016 05:43 |
|
yeah well it still happened you could have said it was the french revolution's personal waterloo
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 05:46 |
|
Justifying militaristic expansion with the intrinsic value of your own culture is colonialism. That the ussr was a colonial power bothers me less than people arguing that it can't have been, because I am an amoral and impotent internet leftist.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 06:13 |
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Worked fine for the French. Sounds like communists lack courage in their convictions. France was also the continental superpower, whereas the nascent Soviet Union had been blooded by three years of a disastrous Great War, and 4 years of possibly the most brutal civil war in human history. Their people were exhausted from all of the violence & strife, their industries and the industrial proletariat was decimated by civil war, and the economy was still mostly agrarian to begin with. The Soviet Union was in no condition for global conquest, and really no country in history ever has been except perhaps the Mongols. And... if only Napoleon had invaded England instead of Russia Enjoy posted:Agreed. This is why I reject Marxism-Leninism, and the legacy of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks did end up representing the popular will, but only because the Mensheviks hosed up so hard. Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Dec 29, 2016 |
# ? Dec 29, 2016 06:21 |
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:France was also the continental superpower, whereas the nascent Soviet Union had been blooded by three years of a disastrous Great War, and 4 years of possibly the most brutal civil war in human history. Their people were exhausted from all of the violence & strife, their industries and the industrial proletariat was decimated by civil war, and the economy was still mostly agrarian to begin with. The Soviet Union was in no condition for global conquest, and really no country in history ever has been except perhaps the Mongols. There is no way of objectively knowing how popular the Bolsheviks were after the 1917 elections (which the Bolsheviks lost) because there were no further elections with non-Bolshevik candidates.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 06:31 |
|
yes it is impossible to gauge how popular the bolsheviks were in the period from 1917 on. If only there were some kind of mass movement we could look to as demonstration
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 06:35 |
|
It's not feasible to have elections during the time of a full blown civil war, or to worry too much about whether you have 51% support or 40% support - either you fight or you die. I'm talking about the context of a stable, socialist society deciding to intervene in another country. That's a very different situation, they side they're backing needs to have already established significant legitimacy such that, should it succeed, it would represent the popular will, as it were.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 06:37 |
|
Homework Explainer posted:yes it is impossible to gauge how popular the bolsheviks were in the period from 1917 on. If only there were some kind of mass movement we could look to as demonstration according to this poll taken by the czar, it appears they weren't very well-liked at all!
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 06:40 |
|
rudatron posted:It's not feasible to have elections during the time of a full blown civil war The US had federal elections in 1862 and 1864. e: just pointing out that the US actually owns. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Dec 29, 2016 |
# ? Dec 29, 2016 06:43 |
|
Homework Explainer posted:yes it is impossible to gauge how popular the bolsheviks were in the period from 1917 on. If only there were some kind of mass movement we could look to as demonstration You can have a mass movement without being the majority. Weeping Wound posted:according to this poll taken by the czar, it appears they weren't very well-liked at all! It was after the Tsar had been overthrown. It was held by the liberal-dominated provisional government, and the left-wing Socialist Revolutionaries won, so pretending it was a sham held by the rulers (as the Soviet elections were) would be pretty absurd.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 06:47 |
|
Bolsheviks had clear majorities in the Soviets which essentially represented industrial workers/soldiers. Lenin eventually won peasants over with the promise of land reform and later market reforms Seeing as Russia was the least industrialized country in Europe, a revolutionary proletarian party was unlikely to get a democratic majority. Also the revolution failed to spread to the West even if it came close to reoccuring in Hungary, Bulgaria, and (most importantly) Germany I would say, however, that considering the White Army had vast military/economic support from all the major powers of the time, the Red Army must have had vast popular support in order to have won. Suppressing the Krondstadt uprising didn't do them any favors though Yossarian-22 fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Dec 29, 2016 |
# ? Dec 29, 2016 07:19 |
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:The US had federal elections in 1862 and 1864. They're still holding elections in Syria, my dude.
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 07:31 |
|
Enjoy posted:It was after the Tsar had been overthrown. It was held by the liberal-dominated provisional government, and the left-wing Socialist Revolutionaries won, so pretending it was a sham held by the rulers (as the Soviet elections were) would be pretty absurd. this thread is getting back to normal after pages and pages of hell
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 07:41 |
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:The US had federal elections in 1862 and 1864. Who did women break for those years
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 07:42 |
|
GalacticAcid posted:Star Wars is for children children are the future, just like communism, b*tch
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 07:45 |
|
I retract my counterrevolutionary utterance
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 08:01 |
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Supporting communism is a good excuse imo Violent imperialism is good if it supports [communism/fascism/capitalism] - truly a well reasoned position
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 08:31 |
Remove that ironically from your title imo
|
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 08:55 |
|
rudatron posted:the french revolution's personal waterloo
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 09:08 |
|
Countries are a bourgeois construct anyhow so I don't see how lending support to workers in other countries=imperialism as long as the movement is from the bottom up and not the top down Soviet imperialism was bad and uncool though and took the latter form
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 09:24 |
|
Yossarian-22 posted:Countries are a bourgeois construct anyhow What do you mean by countries
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 09:52 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 14:20 |
|
Enjoy posted:What do you mean by countries I guess to be more specific, the modern nation-state
|
# ? Dec 29, 2016 10:56 |