/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Common trick employed by historians, btw

>>2257177
the whole idea of "the dictator" has become a pet peeve of mine lately. Even literal absolute monarchs and emperors still operated with narrow confines and were never in full control and often having to balance a bunch of competing interests so they dont get shit on in a palace coup. I honestly can't think of a single historical leader who gets the dictator/autocrat treatment who was even close to this idea of all powerful evil wizard figure with complete control of the political establishment much less the entire state apparatus and everything in it's jurisdiction. its just not how the world works and greatman theory with extra steps.



>>2257185
this three volume series you just sent is awesome thx anon. just going through the table of contents was promising. It really seems like at any given point during this time period all the nominally socialist parties were torn between those who wanted to calm and restrict the various worker and peasant uprisings and those actively trying to "catch-up" with them I guess. The bolshleviks ended up being the best at playing catch-up while the Mensheviks doing the opposite. SRs seem like the wild card but ended doing the Menshevik thing of moderating the radicalism of there base(legal land auctions for kulaks vs. lower peasants getting more violent than the bolshleviks ever were during the tambov rebellion)

>>2257136
>however not siding with the bolsheviks
I wouldn't characterize her position in that way. Parenti's position is that even if there were numerous excesses during the revolutionary period of the USSR (roughly 1917-1945) they were still a net good in the world, that they were an authentic socialist project, that their collapse was a catastrophic defeat for workers and oppressed peoples, etc. There's a good reason why his work is so often recommended as an introduction to post-Soviet Marxism-Leninism.

>>2257500
>The bolshleviks ended up being the best at playing catch-up

Bolsheviks did vanguard party, yeah.

I've never understood the "le collapse!!!" meme when it comes to the USSR. Isn't 80 years a pretty good run? Especially given the amount of opposition they faced. That's roughly how long the US lasted before having a civil war.
Sure as shit lasted longer than European fascism.

>>2257573
Did le state le buy stuff from le kolhoz in le ussr?

>>2257573
>I've never understood the "le collapse!!!" meme when it comes to the USSR. Isn't 80 years a pretty good run? Especially given the amount of opposition they faced. That's roughly how long the US lasted before having a civil war.
you're dealing with anarchoid intellectuals which play pretend games of accusations against states which broke the shackles of imperialism and colonialism and were militarily, economically and politically besieged for years and were in no material position to abolish the state or money 'fast enough'

>>2257573
70 years. 40 years of which were as a real deal superpower on top of the world, something Russian Empire could only dream of

But historically, the collapse meme came to be as a result of constant collapse porn akin to what we hear about China today. An endless stream of clickbait articles about how USSR will be destroyed in a year's time - with the date of collapse being moved back in time for 70 years. And when it finally happened, all those "experts" who talked about collapse congratulated themselves on being prophets who have foreseen it all in finest detail

>Sure as shit lasted longer than European fascism.

Yeah, a thousand year Reich that lasted all of 12 years

>>2257585
people want a socialism that lasts longer and isn't besieged nonstop

Lmao, he follows talking about Grover Furr with conspiracism. Their whole fucking critique of Grover Furr is that 1) he isn't a professional historian 2) that he dismisses (to a certain degree) obvious anticommunist and revisionist sources

In regards to sources bias, he just goes bitching about his post 1990s sources not being accepted because those are fake, Brezhnev sources not being accepted for being revisionism, and 1930 sources for being 1990s fakes

And then! 21:40 he bitches about how Soviets have made it so all history sources must be partisan (as in, non-bipartisan), and be approved by the Party. "Wow, they don't evaluate sources by their veracity, but by how Party thinks about them?!" Ahahaha what a fucking clown

So, then, the retard goes on to dismiss Soviet historiography for bias, and goes searching, desperately, for SR newspapers (and probably Nazi propaganda as well, because they worked towards the same goals anyway) to prove that Bolsheviks did bad things

In any case, it's hilarious listening to them blearing about archives, sources, etc etc, when this fucking moment, SBU straight up prints forgeries and legalizes them through "historians" in order to oppose Russian state providing full texts of documents which Soviets have previously were citing as proof of Katyn being committed by Germans. Anticommunists are THIS FUCKING OBIVOUS, and yet retards like Noj Rants will act like elitist pricks jerking off to academia's self-congratulatory fake non-bias, ignore obvious fucking forgeries being introduced into the archives and into the "circulation", as they call it, and act all smug about "muh 1930s documents admitted to be true by Soviets themselves!!!1"

>>2257926
>two super powers committing propaganda
>historians who are cutting through both propaganda narratives
>bits of truth in each
>going beyond good versus evil

Historians act all smug because they believe that history CANNOT BE TESTED to be true. Therefore, they NEED TO accept all kind of crap documents, and they are ALLOWED TO just spout nonsense without doing critical dismissal of obvious falsehoods. When was the last fucking time for mainstream historians to even consider that archives are fake? That's fucking right, 1990s, when they didn't find evidence of Soviets committing massacres, like was claimed by anticommunist press, and so they went and started producing fakes that repeated after anticommunist press claims in order to justify their propaganda

Like holy hell, those same SBU adjacent historians, in regards to Katyn and such, are straight up saying that 31st of June is a perfectly normal date for Soviet documentation, Soviets were illiterate :^) Printing same document in 6 pages on two different typewriters is also fiiiine, because how could even consider that it's a forgery??? To this fucking day their canon on Troikas isn't consistent, and they cannot answer the question of how Troikas were officially called, for fuck's sake.

And then come out retards like Noj Rants and keep crying about how if two documents both talk about Troikas, but neither can name those properly - and both are claimed to be written by Soviet bureaucracy, NKVD, etc - then the historical truth is that Troikas existed in reality, and not that both sources are lying

No fucking critical thought whatsoever. That's why they hate Grover Furr, he has the audacity to try and understand which sources are fake - through those sources being contradictory towards other sources. And we don't talk about claims and opinions, we talk about contradictions in body counts, who headed what, dates, ridiculous reports written towards people who had no right to see those reports, no fucking adherence to secrecy laws (which are themselves secret, and historians never have had access to such secret shit), impossible claims like NKVD employing civilian truck drivers to shoot Polish officers, and so on and so forth

>>2257573
People blow their gaskets at my opinion that simply re-applying USSR's programme without alterations would be a great pursuit, more worthwhile than anything else happening in the west

but it's true. it's anglo-brained to think that failure discredits a method. sometimes shit just happens and you gotta try again lol

>>2257188
>an actual nuanced take about having a systematic method for evaluating sources, especially sketchy sources like semi-declassified unevaluated information the fucking CIA
>>2257193
>writing history and evaluating sources for bias is just bourgeois academia even though Communists all over the world also wrote history and evaluated sources while doing so
Shouldn't there be a method to evaluate sources other than cite all the ones that agree with me and ignore all the ones that don't? Or, in sources that say multiple things at once, shouldn't there be a method other than cite the parts that agree with me and hide the parts that don't?

>>2257573
wanting to improve actually existing socialism so it succeeds more in the future is different from measuring it against obvious bullshit like fascism. the USSR's collapse was a bad thing and should be avoided, rather than celebrated with a cope like "at least we lasted longer than the nazis". Yeah no shit we lasted longer than an unsustainable society whose ideology was global Murder-Suicide. As for criticizing the early parts of the USSR's history, it is exactly the mistakes made in the earliest years which magnified the difficulties later on but I'm told that any criticism from the perspective of making things better is just "bourgeois academia."

>>2258282
>it is exactly the mistakes made in the earliest years which magnified the difficulties later on
okay. which mistakes, and how did they manifest later on?
>any criticism from the perspective of making things better
this is not what is happening

>>2258000
>People blow their gaskets at my opinion that simply re-applying USSR's programme without alterations would be a great pursuit, more worthwhile than anything else happening in the west
It's historically impossible to "re-apply the USSR's programme without alterations" because no country on Earth has precisely the same semi-feudal material conditions, patchwork of competing political groups, etc that the USSR had. At best you'll find some light analogs in some highly underdeveloped places but even then it's still different because the rest of the world is different. People want to dogmatically re-apply formulas and uncritically defend past experiments in socialism from critics (always uncharitably framed as mere bourgeois slanderers) rather than think dialectically. Marxism isn't a dogma, it's a living movement with dynamic methods. And applying those methods to contemporary conditions and local conditions is not mere revisionism.

>>2258278
>Shouldn't there be a method to evaluate sources other than cite all the ones that agree with me and ignore all the ones that don't?

I like things that are true and don't like things that are obviously ridiculous. Accepting nonsense sources is the bane of Westoid academia. They just don't fucking do any criticism of sources! They look at big ass The History of The Civil War in The USSR and put it on the same level as fucking SR newspapers. They take Cold War era Westoid publications and think those contain "bits of truth" the same way Soviet statistics do.

In other words, they dismiss Soviet academia and instead engage in conspiracy theory mindspace of Soviets hiding evidence, ignoring evidence, yadda yadda, and that only the "free nations" academia can say have unbiased opinion. They should get humiliated for this nonsense

>>2258293
>>2258278
Oh! And then they claim that they are unbiased researchers seeking truth by mentioning that they use Soviets' own sources - except they desperately cherrypick those, and on top of that THEY IGNORE SOVIETS' CONCLUSIONS FROM SOVIETS OWN SOURCES. For example, an admission by Zhukov that they've used American Lend-Lease - they like to quote this as an admission, but they don't like the full context of Zhukov saying that this wasn't in any way a decisive help in the war, instead they go into conspiracy theory about how Zhukov was trying to save Soviet face by denying "an obvious" conclusion that Americans are number one winners of WW2 - if you don't understand, this conclusion is only obvious if you have pro-American preconceived bias, like those "historians" have

>>2257573
Still not socialism. Good capitalist revolution and development tho.

another that you also realize if you read his works is that he was super gay

>>2258286
>okay. which mistakes, and how did they manifest later on?
<thinking the Germans would just fuck off when they said "neither peace nor war" and losing Ukraine temporarily because of it at a critical moment leading up to civil war when control of food was essential
<having to back off from this wishy washy policy really fast and sign the Brest treaty
<coping with needing to sign the Brest treaty by betting their entire political future on the success of other revolutions in Western Europe which didn't end up happening
<Sending mixed signals about wanting a coalition government and Constituent assembly with SRs after October only to forcibly dissolve that constituent assembly which drove their previous allies in The October Revolution away and weakened their own base of support among the peasants in the countryside as the White Movement was beginning to build up
<sending mixed signals about wanting all power to the soviets but then regularly dissolving local soviets when they took actions the vanguard party didn't like
<grain requisitions disincentivized the peasantry to grow surplus
<needing to back off from that policy and do the NEP, Lenin described this aptly in a section titled "Our Mistake", quote "we made the mistake of deciding to go over directly to communist production and distribution. We thought that under the surplus-food appropriation system the peasants would provide us with the required quantity of grain, which we could distribute among the factories and thus achieve communist production and distribution […] brief experience convinced us that that line was wrong, that it ran counter to what we had previously written about the transition from capitalism to socialism, namely, that it would be impossible to bypass the period of socialist accounting and control in approaching even the lower stage of communism. Ever since 1917, when the problem of taking power arose and the Bolsheviks explained it to the whole people, our theoretical literature has been definitely stressing the necessity for a prolonged, complex transition through socialist accounting and control from capitalist society (and the less developed it is the longer the transition will take)"
<Any society supporting non-producing members (such as vanguard party officials) and generating net investment must have some mechanism for inducing the direct produces (in this case peasants making the food and proles making everything else) to produce more than is needed to simply maintain themselves. Before the NEP the bolsheviks were failing to induce the peasantry to produce a surplus.
<needing to purge bourgeois intellectuals from the universities in the 1920s but not having enough vanguard party approved educated communist professionals on deck to replace them with, at a time during the interwar rapid industrialization when educating the population in STEM by any means necessary was absolutely critical
<Massive internal strife in their own party which led to the party basically being preoccupied after the civil war with internal conflicts until 1929
<needing to purge the military and the party in the buildup to WW2
<getting taken by surprise by Operation Barbarossa and thinking Shitler wouldn't just betray the M-R pact and invade
<destalinization by Khruschevite revisionists who shouldn't have made it into the party in the first place (wtf were those purges of old bolsheviks for if they couldn't stop this?)
<sino soviet split
<KGB was not nearly as aggressive at the CIA was, when the CIA was basically couping everyone they could the KGB was not
<not building a soviet internet at a critical point in history (1970s)
<taking the operation cyclone bait and getting bogged down in Afghanistan
<economic decline and perestroika
<falling for the western supermarkets meme
<voluntarily dissolving the USSR and allowing the blackest reaction to come true

Basically the Bolsheviks/CPSU made mistakes every single decade and some people think we should just endlessly dickride, dismiss anyone who acknowledges this shit as bourgeois, and try to make history repeat itself, quote from above in this very thread, "simply re-applying USSR's programme without alterations would be a great pursuit" instead of learning and moving forward. Hey, there's a reason the PRC still exists despite their many mistakes and the USSR does not. Not every mistake is a fatal mistake.

>>2258293
<In other words, they dismiss Soviet academia and instead engage in conspiracy theory mindspace of Soviets hiding evidence, ignoring evidence, yadda yadda, and that only the "free nations" academia can say have unbiased opinion
you're just strawmanning. this conversation literally started with the question of whether we should trust WESTERN sources of information like the CIA, even when they say something nice about the USSR for once (while simultaneously slandering it in other regards). That is the context of this conversation. Did you think I forgot or that I can't scroll back up? We shouldn't trust anybody when they're sucking themselves off, regardless of who they are or how much we like/dislike them. We should evaluate sources not based on which powerful institutions think they're "credible" but based off of comparison with real world evidence. This is not "bourgeois" academia. This is how you avoid tricking yourself by only listening to what you want to hear.

>>2258303
>thinking the Germans would just fuck off when they said "neither peace nor war" and losing Ukraine temporarily because of it at a critical moment leading up to civil war when control of food was essential

Nobody has thought this. You are strawmanning. From the fucking getgo the default assumption was freeze of fighting along the frontlines, and IT FUCKING HAPPENED SINCE FEB 1917, there were no movements towards either direction UNTIL JUNE OFFENSIVE which was approved by SRs and Mensheviks under the guise that Russian "Revolutionary" army must bring democracy to reactionary Germany, and only then the peace offer would apply - aka the default imperialist crap, same one they peddle even today, but now against Russia and in support of fascoid Ukraine

>having to back off from this wishy washy policy really fast and sign the Brest treaty
Brest treaty, huh. What did it say, asshole? What was the Brest treaty?

>betting their entire political future on the success of other revolutions in Western Europe which didn't end up happening
This is what I was talking about when talking about cherrypicking Soviet "admissions" towards approving "unbiased" Westoid research. You see, Bolsheviks DID FUCKING NOT expect Revolutions to happen, they expected PROLETARIAT OF WESTERN NATIONS TO OPPOSE WAR AND SUPPORT SOVIET RUSSIA WHICH WAS A VICTIM OF IMPERIALIST AGGRESSION.

AND THAT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Full scale country wide strikes in Western countries against continuing the war, and against continuing the war agaisnt Soviet Russia, and this resulted in events such as French occupation forces in Odessa fraternizing with locals and refusing to carry out any orders other than vague "stay there and be police". No attacks on Soviet Russia was possible with troops like this, troops like this, in fact, were letting the Red Army to come into settlements and do whatever they wanted, because their whole JUSTIFIED reason of being there in the first place was police action

>Sending mixed signals about wanting a coalition government and Constituent assembly with SRs after October only to forcibly dissolve that constituent assembly which drove their previous allies in The October Revolution away and weakened their own base of support among the peasants in the countryside as the White Movement was beginning to build up

This whole thread has shit all over you for this. Reread thread, and fuck off

I'm not responding to this anticommunist crap. It was disproven in this very thread, all you have to do feel getting obliterated with facts and logic is to read it

>>2257744
>people want a socialism that lasts longer and isn't besieged nonstop
Me too but some be like… "The ruthless criticism of everything that exists? No, past AES that no longer exists and voluntarily dissolved itself after making decades of avoidable mistakes is above reproach and any attempt to understand it and improve upon it is liberal bourgeois slander! Hagiography is praxis!"

>>2258317
USSR's avoidable mistake was no Cultural Revolution.

>>2258315
<random shit about cuckraine war I didn't bring up, trying to lump me in with the NAFO libtards
>heheh, the imageboard that can't cite sources and constantly strawman already shit all over for you so I don't have to prove you wrong
>heheh, I'm going to ignore everything in your post after 1953 because it's correct and I have no real objections
>you are le anti communist because you want to learn from the AES that died in 1991 instead of "simply re-applying USSR's programme without alterations"

ok w/e

>>2258320
The PRC bounced back from that while the USSR did not bounce back from the repeated mistakes after Stalin died… which, if your AES goes revisionist the moment the last of the old bolsheviks are dead, that's not a good sign of its structural integrity which means mistakes were made early on to allow it to get like that. a

>>2258320
Didnt save China from dengism. USSR mistake was not having collective proletarian dictatorship through soviets but instead dictatorship of bureaucrat slave handlers.

>>2258303
>thinking the Germans would just fuck off when they said "neither peace nor war"
they didn't think that. the strategy was temporary peace to build up a red army. "neither peace nor war" was trotsky's line at the negotations which was harshly criticized by lenin (peace) and the leftcoms (war) at that time. this is historical revisionism at its finest.
>having to back off from this wishy washy policy really fast and sign the Brest treaty
again - peace was to be signed immediately but trotsky waivered and the germans continued their offensive and took over ukraine et al. had the peace been signed immediately, there would have been more time to organize and defend and german gains would have been smaller. but at this point this is just speculation and althistory aka NONSENSE
>other revolutions in Western Europe which didn't end up happening
but they happened - in germany, in hungary, in austria, you had soviet republics in yugoslavia, even in ireland. it was not the bolshevik fault that the german communists were unprepared. read ernst tollar's memoirs to just see how little idea the bavarians had when organizing the raetrepublik compared to the bolsheviks and the soviet republic
>Sending mixed signals about wanting a coalition government and Constituent assembly with SRs after October only to forcibly dissolve that constituent assembly which drove their previous allies in The October Revolution away and weakened their own base of support among the peasants in the countryside as the White Movement was beginning to build up
holy shit so much bullshit to unpack. "sending mixed signals" this is literally not true. i don't even want to get into the whole fiasco of left- right-SRs (the bolshevik and left-SRs were at the time together, mostly because the bolsheviks took up the SR programme of land redistribution, which, as has been, the right SR used to strenghen kulaks). "previous allies" damn you really are an ass. at that point any kind of knightly allyship dissappears when faced with the question of who gets to wield state power. the bolsheviks said - the soviets of worker, peasant and army deputees; the others said - the bourgeois pairlament. how can you stay allies at such a crucial point? THE ONLY PARTY THAT WAS POPULAR WITH THE PEASANTS WERE THE SRs!! THE BOLSHEVIK ONLY GATHERED PEASANT SUPPORT AFTER STARTING LAND REFORM AND GIVING OUT LAND TO PEASANTS, something which was part of hte SR programme already!!
>Lenin described this aptly in a section titled "Our Mistake"
okay and? states change policy? parties update theory? what? what is the point? oooohh le greate man lenine said we made mistake therefore FUCKK the soviet union?
<Any society supporting non-producing members (such as vanguard party officials) and generating net investment must have some mechanism for inducing the direct produces (in this case peasants making the food and proles making everything else) to produce more than is needed to simply maintain themselves. Before the NEP the bolsheviks were failing to induce the peasantry to produce a surplus.
fair point but the only one out of the bunch as is more a general critique you can make in retrospective of any would-be socialist regime (espescially one on this scale being made for the first time without clear ideas what to build) than a 'historical mistake'
>needing to purge bourgeois intellectuals from the universities in the 1920s but not having enough vanguard party approved educated communist professionals on deck to replace them with, at a time during the interwar rapid industrialization when educating the population in STEM by any means necessary was absolutely critical
but history literally proves otherwise with the massive industrialization and modernization of soviet society? they purged bourgeois intellecutals for being hostile to soviet power. what is 'wrong' with that?
>Massive internal strife in their own party which led to the party basically being preoccupied after the civil war with internal conflicts until 1929
but this is also expected? like this is how a party is supposed to function? do you want unreflected practice? they were literally building socialism for the first time - of COURSE there are going to be conflicts?? what is this point??????
>needing to purge the military and the party in the buildup to WW2
YES because every other state that didn't do that had a german fifth colon ready to help the occupier. THIS IS FACT! I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH SOMEONE WHO THINKS PURGES HAPPEN FOR NO REASON.
>getting taken by surprise by Operation Barbarossa and thinking Shitler wouldn't just betray the M-R pact and invade
ABSOLUTE FUCKING LIE! stalin was suprised by the FORCE of the attack, not the attack itself. the writing was on the wall in mein kampf about subordinating and colonizing russia. rapid industrialization and collectivization was PREPARATION for the inevitable war with germany. WHAT THE FUCK.

i am not going to continue. damn. what a retarded post

>>2258325
>>2258326
Riiiight, historically literate, source checking, USSR-lawfully-critical, all of those guys also think that PRC is not communist, lmao

>>2258326
>muh Dengism
"Dengism" is how they stopped themselves from war with USA in the 1960s would have inevitably led to some kind of Kuomintang restoration or worse.

>>2258327
>THE ONLY PARTY THAT WAS POPULAR WITH THE PEASANTS WERE THE SRs!! THE BOLSHEVIK ONLY GATHERED PEASANT SUPPORT AFTER STARTING LAND REFORM AND GIVING OUT LAND TO PEASANTS, something which was part of hte SR programme already!!

Check this out >>2257201 SRs stopped being popular with peasants in around August-September, and we can see this in how peasants started torching landlord manors despite SRs begging them to protest lawfully

>>2258327
Also also, the democracy, the constituent assembly/provisional government that SRs and Mensheviks were defending to their dying breath, had such an organization that owning classes had 100 to 1000 times more representatives than peasants and workers. Like, the guy waaaaay up the thread was crying about how Nizhny Novgorod strike against Soviets getting suppressed, and from the same sources mentioned there was a plea from peasants towards local Soviet of how out of 750 representatives peasants have only 3 people, rest being landowners, capitalists and clergy

>>2258336
>implying the USA wouldn't have simply done the jakarta method on China if they didn't normalize trade relations
face it, the "Dengism" started while Mao was still alive.
>he democracy, the constituent assembly/provisional government that SRs and Mensheviks were defending to their dying breath, had such an organization that owning classes had 100 to 1000 times more representatives than peasants and workers.
100 to 1000? that's a bold claim. also an incredibly wide range. 100 times to 1000 times? Somewhere between randomly number with 2 zeroes or random number with 3 zeroes? Got a source? (or are sources all bourgeois academia anyway?) anyway it's the bolsheviks who CLAIMED to support the constituent assembly and then dissolved it when it no longer served their faction personally. Just like they were willing to proclaim "all power to the soviets" but then dissolve any local soviet that voted for SRs or didn't support some measure they wanted. This led actual workers and peasants to take issue with the bolsheviks, which led to their testimonies being recorded, which led to bolsheviks dismissing or censoring it, which led to modern day hagiographers either saying "well it was a civil war whatcha gonna do" or "it's all liberal bourgeois slander don't believe a single word of it." Which is it, again?

(since I've been randomly lumped in with NAFO libtards I expect the next accusation to be that I'm a fan of the foreign-agitated kronsdadt rebellion or something)

>>2258343
>face it, the "Dengism" started while Mao was still alive.
TRVKE

>>2258343
>bolsheviks who CLAIMED to support the constituent assembly
this is before tsarism was overthrown. after tsarism fell and while there were existing soviets structures the bolsheviks (as any good marxist) changed their tactics. the constituent assembly was a demand of the "democratic" part of the russian social-democracy (the intellectuals which had wanted democracy in the bourgeois sense, representative pairalmentary democracy). this was a tool, a demand almost all parties on the left had. now, why would you want a bourgeois organ of state power while there are actually existing worker organs of power?? the only reason is if you're an anticommunist.

>>2258341
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_1907_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0

1907 elections system still existed in some form in 1917 when they were still continuing to use it for provisional government.

>Rounded up, it can be assumed that the various population groups were represented with the following proportionality[7]:
>the rural population of European Russia elected 1 deputy per 2 million people;
>The workers elected 1 deputy per 830,000 people.;
>The voters of all three price curia elected 1 deputy per 16 thousand people[8].

>>2258343
>Just like they were willing to proclaim "all power to the soviets" but then dissolve any local soviet that voted for SRs or didn't support some measure they wanted.

Forcing reelections =/= dissolving a soviet. SRs were tyrants who were postponing reelections under any pretext they could because by June 1917 people stopped voting for them even in their electoral strongholds

True. The soviet union should have been an authentic multiparty democracy like the gdr

>>2258507
>liberal parliamentarism
>democracy
Pick one.

>>2253123
Anarchist moment

How can you not love the guy.

>>2260494
>send all jews to palestine
zio kronstadt sailors lmao no wonder they was a rebellion against the leaders of the rebellion by the end of that clusterfuck

noooo not my heckin dead white dude

>>>>2253053

>>"neither represented the "bolshevik" (majority) of the population, nor even the proletarian minority in the cities."
>>"The SRs were much closer to a majority of the country and the Mensheviks (ironically "minority") were much closer to representing a majority of the proletariat."

and? who the fuck should care? communism isn't democratic and everyone already knows that the "vanguard" is a minority within the class of proletarians

>>2267132
>communism isn't democratic
How can you have collectivism without democracy?
Protip You can't

Glow op

>>2305073
necro bump alert
>>2267132
>communism isn't democratic

>It is ridiculous to think that Mr. Kautsky could find in any country even one out of a thousand of well-informed workers or farm labourers who would have any doubts as to the reply. Instinctively, from hearing fragments of admissions of the truth in the bourgeois press, the workers of the whole world sympathise with the Soviet Republic precisely because they regard it as a proletarian democracy, a democracy for the poor, and not a democracy for the rich that every bourgeois democracy, even the best, actually is.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm
SURELY LENIN WAS ONLY SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY

SURELY LENIN REJECTED DEMOCRACY AND DIDN'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY SUCH THING AS PROLETARIAN DEMOCRACY