Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

The Bolsheviks didn't overthrow the monarchy. The monarchy was actually overthrown by the provisional government. The Bolsheviks, at the time merely the leading party of a nominally democratic Petrograd Soviet, staged a military coup against the provisional government (itself lead by the Socialist Revolutionary Party). The Bolsheviks then began the increasingly brutal suppression of other socialist parties, nominally under the excuse of preserving the peace with the Central Powers which many other socialist parties opposed.

The monarchy was not "overthrown" by the provisional government; the latter was formed after the former abdicated, and was dominated by pre-existing noble elites.

By the "overthrow of the monarchy", I'm not merely talking about the abdication and formal transfer of power to another broadly conservative provisional government. I'm talking about the defeat of the White Army (with its heavy Tsarist presence), the storming of the Winter Palace (with its heavy Tsarist symbolism), and the killing of the imperial family. That-- and successfully forming a government-- is what revolutionaries worldwide remembered.

That's not even close to a complete list. What about the revolution in Finland, crushed by the whites and their German allies after the Bolsheviks ordered the people in occupied territories not to attack the forces of the Central Powers. What about the Ukraine, crushed by the Bolsheviks themselves. Catalonia, crushed by Stalinists. The third revolution in Russia itself. The Krondstadt rebellion, also in Russia itself.

Uhrm, what about them? None of these would have been more successful with the Russian Republic still in place.

Several of the ones you describe had already happened by the end of the Russian civil war.

Only Germany and Hungary, both of which took place once the Civil War was well underway, and both of which explicitly took inspiration from the success of the Russian socialists in forming a government.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Not everything is terrible. Well, at least one thing isn't anyway.

Arbery killers convicted of federal hate crimes in his death

Whether the three white men sentenced to life in prison in state court for murdering Ahmaud Arbery also are guilty of hate crimes is now in the hands of a federal jury.

www.snopes.com

What does it say that it takes this level of blatant racism for justice to be delivered, and that the DOJ apparently originally wanted a plea bargain?

 

[Seanchaidh]

If you're going to urge pragmatism, the least you could do is be pragmatic about something you can actually change.

Breaking the spell of mainstream media war propaganda is just about the only thing I have any influence on whatsoever, at least here. And I noticed that you stripped away all the context again.

In any reasonable estimation.

What do you think happens when you enforce a one-party dictatorship, suppress and kill all other left-wing political and intellectual figures, suppress all communist movements internationally not explicitly aligned with your party, intervene in other countries in order to murder left-wing activists and revolutionaries not explicitly aligned with your party.

What did happen is that the Soviet Union inspired revolutionaries around the world to take power and rapidly industrialize based explicitly on the Soviet model. The Soviet Union even, if US domestic politics after its fall is any indication, went so far as to keep capitalist domestic policy from being quite as brutal via the mere example of a different way of doing things. Soviet "whataboutism" also contributed in at least a small way to the (albeit still only partial) success of the civil rights movement in the United States.

The Soviet Union has, however, been the target of (at least among states) probably the largest volume of negative propaganda in world history-- and not so much because of its shortcomings (there are plenty of entities with more brutal histories including the state where you live and the union of states where I live) but because of its successes. Because of the very powerful people its mere existence offended. It is useful to those people to defame it. Any socialist project of similar scale and longevity would have been similarly defamed no matter how tranquil. That does not make them not worth doing. But it would be helpful if they happened, well, here first. Because here is where the most massive capitalist base of power operates from and here is where the international ruling class has placed its means of militarily dominating the world and organizing clandestine sabotage of any competing system.

The stock market may be barely more than an abstract concept with little firm tie to any particular location, the international capitalist ruling class is incredibly mobile, but the resources and organization that enable capitalist domination is on the other hand very material, very particular, and very local-- which is why the US has its several hundred military bases all around the world and its eleven nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers (among many other seagoing vessels, of course). Severing this base of military and economic power from capitalist control would be the most useful possible accomplishment in the long struggle against capitalist domination because it would relieve many megatons of pressure on other movements around the world-- pressure which, by the way, distorts the options available to all those socialist movements and countries, makes them justifiably paranoid, and forces them to spend resources on military preparedness and even (counter) propaganda rather than the needs of their people. Because otherwise they will simply be gobbled up.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The monarchy was not "overthrown" by the provisional government; the latter was formed after the former abdicated, and was dominated by pre-existing noble elites.

The provisional government was a continuation of the pre-existing state Duma, the lower house of Tsarist Russia.

And yes, if you want to get technical the monarchy wasn't overthrown at all, since Nicholas II abdicated. However, the soldiers who arrested the royal family and placed them under house arrest were loyal to the provisional government. The reason Michael never ascended to the throne to replace Nicholas is because the provisional government never gave permission for him to do so. The Bolsheviks weren't involved.

This isn't an endorsement of the provisional government, although again I will point out that its leading political party at the time of its overthrow was the left-wing Socialist Revolutionaries. It's a simple statement of fact. The Bolsheviks took over a revolution that had already happened and transformed it into their own dictatorship, in line with their own vanguardist ideology. They can't really be credited with it, and their actions in many cases created massive popular resentment that concretely made the situation worse.

I'm talking about the defeat of the White Army (with its heavy Tsarist presence), the storming of the Winter Palace (with its heavy Tsarist symbolism), and the killing of the imperial family. That-- and successfully forming a government-- is what revolutionaries worldwide remembered.

Do you think the Bolsheviks were the only ones who fought the whites? Do you even think the majority of people who fought the whites were Bolsheviks?

Killing the Imperial family was frankly an embarrassment. Noone likes people who shoot children. I always found it interesting that the PRC intentionally didn't kill their royal family because they saw the Soviets doing so as a failure.

None of these would have been more successful with the Russian Republic still in place.

I didn't say they would, although in the case of Finland they absolutely would. They would all, in all likelihood, have been more successful without the Bolsheviks though.

The Bolsheviks are not synonymous with the Russian revolution. They were a minority party among the Russian left. The reason the Bolsheviks abolished the constituent assembly is because they got absolutely trashed by the SRs in the popular vote. They were a minority party who seized power by exploiting a local power base within what was then the capital city of Russia, relative influence over the armed forces and, ultimately, because their rivals were idealists who didn't take the opportunity to shoot them when they had the chance (or just got unlucky, in the case of the underground anarchists). The only reason the civil war escalated as badly as it did is because everyone hated the Bolsheviks. There are many, many socialists who fought for the whites in the civil war (before the white government consolidated and banned socialism in its armed forces). Many, many socialists also fought for the greens or the anarchists against both sides.

Tell me, why was Bolshevism in particular necessary to inspire others to revolution? What good did it do for anything or anyone?

 

[Silvanus]

Do you think the Bolsheviks were the only ones who fought the whites? Do you even think the majority of people who fought the whites were Bolsheviks?

No, but that's not relevant to what we're discussing. You said it would've been preferable if the White had won. That doesn't mean socialism without the Bolsheviks. That means the defeat of all Revolutionary forces, Bolshevik or not, and the return to insane repressive conservatism.

The Bolsheviks are not synonymous with the Russian revolution. They were a minority party among the Russian left. The reason the Bolsheviks abolished the constituent assembly is because they got absolutely trashed by the SRs in the popular vote. They were a minority party who seized power by exploiting a local power base within what was then the capital city of Russia, relative influence over the armed forces and, ultimately, because their rivals were idealists who didn't take the opportunity to shoot them when they had the chance (or just got unlucky, in the case of the underground anarchists). The only reason the civil war escalated as badly as it did is because everyone hated the Bolsheviks. There are many, many socialists who fought for the whites in the civil war (before the white government consolidated and banned socialism in its armed forces). Many, many socialists also fought for the greens or the anarchists against both sides.

Ditto: none of this is relevant to the point under discussion. A White victory would mean utter suppression of these other socialist forces you're talking about.

Tell me, why was Bolshevism in particular necessary to inspire others to revolution? What good did it do for anything or anyone?

It's not, and I didn't say it was. But success in forming a government and dismantling the old noble/conservative power was. And this was only possible with a Red Army victory.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, but that's not relevant to what we're discussing. You said it would've been preferable if the White had won. That doesn't mean socialism without the Bolsheviks. That means the defeat of all Revolutionary forces, Bolshevik or not, and the return to insane repressive conservatism.

Getting into "what if" territory a lot, but assuming the Tsarist forces had won, I could well imagine them not being modernised enough to hold back the Third Reich, assuming the Great Patriotic War still happened without the spectre of communism.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Breaking the spell of mainstream media war propaganda is just about the only thing I have any influence on whatsoever, at least here.

Are you kidding? You're dispelling nothing.

Anyone with the slightest political awareness knows that the mainstream US media is propaganda. However, anyone who has that political awareness can also tell when you're regurgitating Russian propaganda, and isn't taken in by it. Noone is going to take your criticism of US media hypocrisy around neo-Nazis in the Ukraine seriously if you yourself act like a hypocrite and go to the wall to defend fascists.

All you had to do to get me on side was to admit that Russia is ruled by fascists and imperialists, but you literally can't do it. I have never crossed the line into defending the US in the way you have with Russia. The fact you will cross that line for absolutely no political gain whatsoever is pathetic. It's embarrassing. It's not convincing anyone, and it makes me resent the fact that I agree with you on anything because I don't want to be associated with cowards and hypocrites.

Speaking of which.

What did happen is that the Soviet Union inspired revolutionaries around the world to take power and rapidly industrialize based explicitly on the Soviet model.

You mean state capitalism.

The Soviet Union even, if US domestic politics after its fall is any indication, went so far as to keep capitalist domestic policy from being quite as brutal via the mere example of a different way of doing things. Soviet "whataboutism" also contributed in at least a small way to the (albeit still only partial) success of the civil rights movement in the United States.

In the early 20th century, there was an actual labour movement in the US. It broke up largely due to government suppression during the first red scare, but also due to internal conflict over Bolshevism. The socialist influence in the civil rights movement was largely based on Western European socialist thought that grew in large part out of the perceived failure of the Soviet Union. So I guess you could say that the Soviet Union had an influence there, just not as a positive example.

But it would be helpful if they happened, well, here first. Because here is where the most massive capitalist base of power operates from and here is where the international ruling class has placed its means of militarily dominating the world and organizing clandestine sabotage of any competing system.

Yeah, it would be very helpful. But it's never going to happen. You know why? Because anyone wanting to improve anything, not just in the US but anywhere in the world, has to deal with the legacy of Bolshevism.

The goal of the revolution wasn't to industrialize Russia. Capitalism could have industrialized Russia. Capitalism could have (and has) made Russia a rival of the United States, which is why you've started simping for Russian capitalists. The goal of the revolution was much bigger than that. The Bolsheviks chose the lesser path, the path of pragmatism, and they "inspired" others to do the same. Now everything they built with that pragmatism is gone and the world is left at the mercy of ever more insidious forms of capitalism. Was it worth it, do you think? Did they succeed?

 

[Terminal Blue]

No, but that's not relevant to what we're discussing. You said it would've been preferable if the White had won. That doesn't mean socialism without the Bolsheviks. That means the defeat of all Revolutionary forces, Bolshevik or not, and the return to insane repressive conservatism.

Is that particularly different to Bolshevism?

Insane repressive conservatism isn't stable, any more than Bolshevism was stable. There would have been other revolutions, but the concept of revolution wouldn't be forever tainted.

Russia was an incredibly socialist country in 1918. It wasn't a Bolshevik country, but broad socialist support was incredibly high in the population. The government the whites eventually formed was incredibly conservative, but many of the people who fought against the Bolsheviks were not.

The most powerful anti-communist weapon isn't repression, it's disillusionment. The Bolsheviks were masters of disillusionment (which is not to say they skimped on the repression either).

 

[Trunkage]

The enlightenment is terribly overrated, and has much less impact on the formation of America than people think.

The founding father saw JudeoChristian culture of their time and said, 'That's trash. We gotta put a whole suite of laws in to stop that nonsense.'

 

[tstorm823]

The founding father saw JudeoChristian culture of their time and said, 'That's trash. We gotta put a whole suite of laws in to stop that nonsense.'

I think you're spending too much time on the internet.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Is that particularly different to Bolshevism?

Insane repressive conservatism isn't stable, any more than Bolshevism was stable. There would have been other revolutions, but the concept of revolution wouldn't be forever tainted.

You seem to believe simultaneously that people generally are incredibly well informed-- at least on the menu of details you think are both true and relevant-- and also incredibly stupid when it comes to putting together thoughts about it. It's a disquieting juxtaposition.

edit: To be precise, what makes it so disquieting is that you aren't incredibly stupid about what to conclude from that menu of details-- a menu of details that is very clearly blinkered to support a specific polemical point; you haven't concluded that pursuing socialist revolution would be a bad thing per se. You just expect everyone else to be incredibly stupid about what to conclude to the point that you've embraced the most pessimistic form of fatalism because of how you perceive people will react over the next hundreds of years to mostly arcane historical events!

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

 

[Silvanus]

Is that particularly different to Bolshevism?

Insane repressive conservatism isn't stable, any more than Bolshevism was stable. There would have been other revolutions, but the concept of revolution wouldn't be forever tainted.

Insane repressive conservatism held throughout Europe for centuries upon centuries.

Other revolutions would become infinitely less likely, and less likely to succeed, if the one that provided millions of revolutionaries worldwide with a model was immediately suppressed.

Russia was an incredibly socialist country in 1918. It wasn't a Bolshevik country, but broad socialist support was incredibly high in the population. The government the whites eventually formed was incredibly conservative, but many of the people who fought against the Bolsheviks were not.

Yet you're arguing for the destruction of that socialist project in its entirety, both the Bolsheviks and the non-Bolsheviks, in the form of a White Army victory?

 

[thebobmaster]

Hey, Greg Abbott? FUCK OFF.

 

[Buyetyen]

Hey, Greg Abbott? FUCK OFF.

Because punishing loving parents and breaking up families is definitely what I think of when I hear "family values."

 

[Hades]

Because punishing loving parents and breaking up families is definitely what I think of when I hear "family values."

Its also what I think when I hear ''small government''.

 

[Trunkage]

I think you're spending too much time on the internet.

You know, I dont always feel pride in being Australians. We've done some pretty terrible things

But the repudiation of the 'Religious Freedom' bill here does. If Religious Freedom just means bullying and discrimination, it does not belong in the West. The West as a concept, isn't Christian. It just happens to have mostly Christians in it

People like De Santos and Abbot are the exact people the founding fathers warned the American populace about.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Hey, Greg Abbott? FUCK OFF.

Oh look, the heteronormative crusaders are now enforcing their desire to punish anyone who fails to meet their standards. Kinda like how people have been saying they would.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Physically, if need be

Hey, remember back when morons tried to claim conservatives didn't hate LGBT people? Fun times

 

[BrawlMan]

These idotic Trump fanatics are sending out letter, so a person can try and get him re-elected. "Stop the steal". I got one of those letters, and immediately tossed it in the trash. They've sending out these text messages in Michigan too. Or one of those weird "political opinion surveys". I've been getting those some of the time too.