|
More like Richard Diapes
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
paul_soccer10 posted:Lenin was an opportunistic power seeker who destroyed socialism in Russia in a coup thst ushered in decades of brutal dictatorship that would forever tarnish the idea of international socialism Even as someone who thinks the whole ML program was fundamentally flawed, I think it's important to acknowledge that Lenin and even Stalin genuinely believed in what they were doing. If we write them off as just being bad people who hijacked socialism, the only lesson we can learn is "don't be a bad person who hijacks socialism." Instead we can look at them and learn both from what they got right (eg the feudal -> capitalist -> socialist -> communist track is not an inevitable sequence from one to the next) and what they got wrong (eg a temporary revolutionary dictatorship will never voluntarily relinquish its "temporary" power).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:25
|
|
|
if you're trying to say that the history of the ussr is ultimately a negative one historically, I don't know if I agree 100% but I understand and prolly largely agree with the idea. that shouldnt translate into saying the history of the russian revolution is a negative one. that the ussr became something wholly undemocratic and not-socialist doesnt, to me anyway, diminish the victory and positive lessons and accomplishments that the russian revolution brought about. I think to say that somehow the eventual failure of the ussr and its slide into authoritarianism can be put solely on the hands of lenin and the bolsheviks of 1917 would be like saying that the leaders and organizers of the haitian revolution of 1804 are somehow responsible for the condition of haiti in the present day and that they were wrong to try to end slavery and free themselves
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:25
|
|
|
zeal posted:you're getting your history of communism from a center-right fundamentalist with an axe to grind. i dearly hope pipes of all people is not your sole source on the subject My sole source on every subject is noam chomsky and I had to Google "antisoviet historian" to make that post
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
Apropos ty for your posts btw
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
paul_soccer10 posted:No offense but I think Dr Richard Pipes knows a bit more about history, what with being, you know, an actual, you know, historian. I gotta dick pipe for ya right here
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
paul_soccer10 posted:Apropos ty for your posts btw np, trotskys history of the russian revolution is a great first hand account of the events of the revolution and provides a lot of lessons for socialists even today for anyone who wants to learn more. i havent read it but mieville's october im told provides a more casual overview of the events and does a pretty good job overall
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
reading any historically accurate account of the period between february and october 1917 makes pretty much any argument that the bolsheviks were the bad guys seem ridiculous. at one point they saved the country and provisional government from falling to a military dictatorship even while the provisional government had their leadership in exile or under arrest
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
read the short course. namaste
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
I mean, any time you have something as messy and multifactional as the Russian Revolution(s), trying to distill it into a good guys vs bad guys story is going to be lazy and ahistorical. Every faction does bad stuff, and a lot of them also do good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
So what is a good discussion of the lessons of the Russian Revolution that isn't 'didn't gulag enough kulaks'? Books, pamphlets, video, anything's fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
cold war historiography has poisoned the well of discussion to the point where, even now in 2018, saying anything remotely positive about the ussr has to be couched in a preamble of "oh yes they were hitler devils, but" which saps most prescriptive power out of that position. which is deliberate
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I mean, any time you have something as messy and multifactional as the Russian Revolution(s), trying to distill it into a good guys vs bad guys story is going to be lazy and ahistorical. Every faction does bad stuff, and a lot of them also do good stuff. Actually the Whites were by every objective measure worse than the Bolsheviks, and it's a mercy that they were such a bunch of clown shoe incompetent morons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
namesake posted:So what is a good discussion of the lessons of the Russian Revolution that isn't 'didn't gulag enough kulaks'? Books, pamphlets, video, anything's fine. since last year was the hundredth anniversary, a lot of books, talks, etc. were made like mieville's october i mentioned before. here's a podcast put out by socialist alternative of which I'm a member that discusses the events and some of the lessons we can draw and apply today https://www.socialistalternative.org/2017/08/17/podcast-russian-revolutions-relevance-today/
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
heres that video i was apeing btw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM&t=180s
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
when chomsky dies i think ill kill myself in solidarity
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Actually the Whites were by every objective measure worse than the Bolsheviks, and it's a mercy that they were such a bunch of clown shoe incompetent morons. I mean if we do have to pick sides to endorse as the Good Ones I'd be strongly tempted by the Blacks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I mean if we do have to pick sides to endorse as the Good Ones I'd be strongly tempted by the Blacks. It's true
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:reading any historically accurate account of the period between february and october 1917 makes pretty much any argument that the bolsheviks were the bad guys seem ridiculous. at one point they saved the country and provisional government from falling to a military dictatorship even while the provisional government had their leadership in exile or under arrest And then you read past October 1917 and the bolsheviks don't look so great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
the soviet union died in 1921
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:And then you read past October 1917 and the bolsheviks don't look so great. apropos to nothing posted:if you're trying to say that the history of the ussr is ultimately a negative one historically, I don't know if I agree 100% but I understand and prolly largely agree with the idea. that shouldnt translate into saying the history of the russian revolution is a negative one. that the ussr became something wholly undemocratic and not-socialist doesnt, to me anyway, diminish the victory and positive lessons and accomplishments that the russian revolution brought about. I think to say that somehow the eventual failure of the ussr and its slide into authoritarianism can be put solely on the hands of lenin and the bolsheviks of 1917 would be like saying that the leaders and organizers of the haitian revolution of 1804 are somehow responsible for the condition of haiti in the present day and that they were wrong to try to end slavery and free themselves
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
It's negative because there was no revolution in people's lives. They were asked to go back to work so that one day things would be better, and if that didn't work and their resentment came out in force, they were met with violence. They once again lived under a government that they had little say in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
after the revolution the country was invaded by 17 other nations which all supported some of the most reactionary forces in history. the black hundreds and other white armies engaged in horrible pogroms and mass murder. what became of the revolution was a tragedy and many bolsheviks, even and especially lenin, wrote and argued about how the bureaucratization of the new regime was a threat to workers control and empowerment. many of the individuals who made up the original bolshevik party were murdered by the regime following 1928 and especially again in 1936 with the repression of the left opposition and the moscow show trials. to portray the bolsheviks as some kind of insidious force which always had the goal of enslaving the nation is completely disingenuous. if you read lenin's body of work he sounds more like a modern day anarchist
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
here’s my take: I’m glad the USSR existed and wish it still did
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
the ultimate fate of the ussr is unfortunate, but to put the blame on its ultimate failure and degeneration on the bolsheviks and not the imperialist and reactionary forces which opposed it is again, like blaming the leaders of the haitian revolution for the inequities and injustices in that country following the revolution and into the present day
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:here’s my take: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:after the revolution the country was invaded by 17 other nations which all supported some of the most reactionary forces in history. the black hundreds and other white armies engaged in horrible pogroms and mass murder. what became of the revolution was a tragedy and many bolsheviks, even and especially lenin, wrote and argued about how the bureaucratization of the new regime was a threat to workers control and empowerment. many of the individuals who made up the original bolshevik party were murdered by the regime following 1928 and especially again in 1936 with the repression of the left opposition and the moscow show trials. to portray the bolsheviks as some kind of insidious force which always had the goal of enslaving the nation is completely disingenuous. if you read lenin's body of work he sounds more like a modern day anarchist I think their intentions to help the people were genuine (and i include Stalin here), the problem was their tactics. Lenin may have written like an anarchist, but he thought that he knew the correct course of action and thwarted his opposition through whatever means available, even if that meant subverting democracy and centralizing power. He may have wanted democracy and control by the workers, but he never actually trusted the people unless he was sure that they agreed with him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
One could argue without the USSR to act as a boogeyman capital in the west no longer has something to point at and scare people away from leftism which is why younger generations are starting to really demand alternatives to capitalism. Looking at the USSR's failures/successes to learn from is good but any successor would be radically different simply due to modern communications. The next lenin will be reaching a much wider audience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
lol the fall of the USSR was an unmitigated disaster for Western leftism
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
also world war 1
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:One could argue without the USSR to act as a boogeyman capital in the west no longer has something to point at and scare people away from leftism which is why younger generations are starting to really demand alternatives to capitalism. one could argue a lot of stupid poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:lol the fall of the USSR was an unmitigated disaster for Western leftism I don't disagree, which is why i mentioned younger generations. There is a reason why gen X is the most right-wing generation
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:It's negative because there was no revolution in people's lives. They were asked to go back to work so that one day things would be better, and if that didn't work and their resentment came out in force, they were met with violence. They once again lived under a government that they had little say in. I think you are severely underestimating just how terrible life in tsarist russia was Jizz Festival posted:I think their intentions to help the people were genuine (and i include Stalin here), the problem was their tactics. Lenin may have written like an anarchist, but he thought that he knew the correct course of action and thwarted his opposition through whatever means available, even if that meant subverting democracy and centralizing power. I'm not a fan of the "Hard Men Making Hard Choices" narrative, but the reason they won is because of their tactics. The Russian Civil War was the bloodiest one in history up to that point. The Red forces succeeded largely because the Whites, Blacks, and Greens couldn't organize as effectively or act as decisively. The Bolsheviks even eased up afterward with the NEP, because the realities of the post-revolution USSR were different
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:I think you are severely underestimating just how terrible life in tsarist russia was The promise of a revolution isn't the promise.of a higher quality of life. Dreddout posted:I'm not a fan of the "Hard Men Making Hard Choices" narrative, but the reason they won is because of their tactics. If taking dictatorial control was necessary, most people must have been in disagreement. If the people don't agree with the correct course of action, then how can they ever lead themselves?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I think their intentions to help the people were genuine (and i include Stalin here), the problem was their tactics. Lenin may have written like an anarchist, but he thought that he knew the correct course of action and thwarted his opposition through whatever means available, even if that meant subverting democracy and centralizing power. im sorry but this doesnt gel at all with the actual history of events. the provisional government was in no way a democratic government, it was a collection of ministers and party members from the various parties represented in the duma that just took power after the february revolution. the bolsheviks following lenins return argued for all state power to be transferred to the soviets, the literal workers and soldiers councils that were democratically elected by the working people of the factories, the barracks, and the cit blocks. the bolsheviks consistently argued for soviet control, even prior to the october revolution when other parties like the mensheviks and social revolutionaries held majorities in the soviets
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:im sorry but this doesnt gel at all with the actual history of events. the provisional government was in no way a democratic government, it was a collection of ministers and party members from the various parties represented in the duma that just took power after the february revolution. the bolsheviks following lenins return argued for all state power to be transferred to the soviets, the literal workers and soldiers councils that were democratically elected by the working people of the factories, the barracks, and the cit blocks. the bolsheviks consistently argued for soviet control, even prior to the october revolution when other parties like the mensheviks and social revolutionaries held majorities in the soviets No poo poo the provisional government sucked, but all power was not given to the soviets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:The promise of a revolution isn't the promise.of a higher quality of life. Fair quote:If taking dictatorial control was necessary, most people must have been in disagreement. If the people don't agree with the correct course of action, then how can they ever lead themselves? But the Bolsheviks were given that dictatorial power by their base of supporters. Namely, the urban soviets. It doesn't take a Marxist to realize that the urban workers were a very strong power base in 1917. Power doesn't emerge from thin air, even absolute dictators have a class of people who see it in their best interest to throw support behind. The Bolsheviks were distinct in the fact that this powerbase came from the urban workers, rather than the military or capitalist class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
just to elaborate some more on the course of events, the bolsheviks at large began calling for "all power to the soviets" around the start of the july days. during this period they were still a minority faction in the soviets. the mensheviks were largely the majority in the soviets at this time and also had representation and nominally control of the provisional government. despite this, the mensheviks refused to take the lead in granting control to the workers because they believed they basically needed to commit to a holding action whereby they safeguarded power to be later transferred over to the liberals and capitalists so as to complete the "liberal" revolution that "orthodox" marxism called for before a workers revolution could occur. this was not a position held by all the menshiviks and its why during this time so many bolsheviks and menshiviks were changing parties and why even the bolsheviks were not wholly agreed on the seizure of power or even their party opposition to the provisional government. following the july days and the unrest that occurred, the provisional government began a campaign of repression on the bolsheviks, despite the fact that the party had actually held the masses back from revolutionary action during july for fear that it was premature. on at least one instance bolsheviks had to basically talk the crowds down from attacking kerensky and other menshiviks. after the clampdown began, trotsky was imprisoned, lenin fled to finland, and the party headquarters was basically occupied by government forces. because of the tumult occuring in the capitol, elements of the army made overtures about marching back from the front to "restore order." the most infamous example is kornilov who was basically invited back to petrograd by kerensky, only for kerensky to realize as he approached that the general had every intention of deposing the government for a military dictatorship. a at this point, the provisional government basically had to free the bolsheviks and ask them to defend them, even after having just imprisoned them and committed to destroying their organization. the reason was because the bolsheviks were the only ones who the workers and people trusted enough to lead them and who had the organization to actually mobilize the defense. they were successful and from that point forward from about september, the provisional government was basically already meaningless and ruled in name only. the actual bolshevik revolution was almost entirely bloodless and by the time it actually happened, the workers and soldiers had gone over to their side almost whole cloth. the fact that the bolsheviks called for all power to the soviets even while the mensheviks and SRs controlled them shows they werent just opportunistic but legitmately believed in the soviets as a means for achieving real workers democracy. that they used them to achieve the goal of soviet rule after winning a majority of workers to their side was just making good on their promise and their political program.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:just to elaborate some more on the course of events, the bolsheviks at large began calling for "all power to the soviets" around the start of the july days. during this period they were still a minority faction in the soviets. the mensheviks were largely the majority in the soviets at this time and also had representation and nominally control of the provisional government. despite this, the mensheviks refused to take the lead in granting control to the workers because they believed they basically needed to commit to a holding action whereby they safeguarded power to be later transferred over to the liberals and capitalists so as to complete the "liberal" revolution that "orthodox" marxism called for before a workers revolution could occur. this was not a position held by all the menshiviks and its why during this time so many bolsheviks and menshiviks were changing parties and why even the bolsheviks were not wholly agreed on the seizure of power or even their party opposition to the provisional government. and then what happened
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
I'm sympathetic to the idea that more power could have been delegated back to the soviets after the revolution. I do think that it was a failure of the bolseviks not to, with the benefit of hindsight. At the same time, the Bolsheviks were right about the rest of Europe being out to get them, this was born out in the lead up to WW2. I really don't know how ruthless Stalin needed to be to force industrialization, conscript soldiers, and transition to a war economy. Those policies had many awful consequences, and they probably wouldn't have been implemented under a direct democracy, but the USSR under Stalin did ultimately win the war. I don't know if that would be true if there wasn't an authoritarian government willing to put the boot in. The alternative certainly didn't work well for the Spanish Republicans
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2018 19:36
|
|