Something incredible happened 99 years ago today

says the dood literally not understanding what capital is lol

But Bordiga supported the revolution and Bolsheviks…

youtube.com/watch?v=nsagEzD17Ns

99 years ago today vladimir stalin took power and immediately started the five year plan that murdered 10 million gazillion people

...

Fuckin revisionism

Well get purged was a likely end if you were a committed communist after the 1920s.

Its the most wonderful time of the year

Man that would look pretty neat if somebody took that and made it into pic related. I kinda wish I could draw now.

...

...

That picture is such shit. Kollontai was never missing she was sent to be the ambassador to Sweden and lived almost as long as Stalin. There are question marks everywhere and shoddy information throughout. Worst of all though is that at that the top it says "Lenin's general staff" rather then the Bolshevik party. At the time the party wasn't united behind Lenin it included numerous members including Trotsky who joined from the Mensheviks.

The meme version is better 2bh

Still shit because it says "Lenin's general staff at the top." The Bukharanites and Trotskyists deserved execution precisely because they were anti-Leninist.

ML is one hell of a cult, I tell ya.

Trotsky and before him his supporter Joffe led the peace negotations during world war one to nowhere and the left communists led by Bukharin were the most against making peace despite Lenin's insistence. This came up in the Moscow trials.

WOOT WOOT!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=7xMD8Epbhpk
This is the thread theme.

Yeah, Bukarhin accelerationist views were dumb, but he recanted them eventually and the then Brest-Litovsk was signed. That's bedside the fact that the Five Year plans would've been impossible and Russia would've been economically ruined had Bukarhin been right. Again, it is telling that past idiocies that in the long run, had little to no substantial affect is justification for execution in the cult of ML. The good part is your shitty regime is dead.

Bukarhin and Stalin were best buddies too. Stalin went too far man. Too far. I could forgive for the collectivization thing, but holy hell did the whole purge fiasco just did it in for me.

World war one was an imperialist predatory war. Bukharin's policy of continuing the imperialist war would have caused many more deaths. Why is it so bad when the Soviet justice system to sentence people to death and when Bukharin does the same its only a "past idiocy"?

What are you anarchist, trotskyist, something else?

Stalin didn't have any friends, certainly not after the tsarist infiltrator Roman Malinovsky almost got him put away to Siberia forever. Anyone even your close party members could be infiltrators, wreckers, saboteurs, or worse. In order to succeed in this cutthroat world you need to be utterly ruthless and without mercy. No one should be free of suspicion. British agents like the ace of spies Sidney Reilly and Bruce Lockhart tried to crush the revolution in its infancy and were only stopped by Soviet intelligence.

Bukarhin didn't want to concede to capitalist demands. There would've been another revolution in Russia had the treaty stayed - there would've been absolutely NO money for industrial development in Russia for years. But then he recanted what he said and agreed to sign Brest-Litovsk. I hardly see how it warrants sentencing Bukarhin to death two decades later.

Cry more tankie, it's never coming back. Everyone I know who lived under you shitty system (my friends grandpa led the division that liberated Auschwitz) abhors it. It turned them off from Communism and leftism forever. They think I'm a wacko idealist for wishing the German Revolution had succeeded because of how repressive the Soviet system was.

You didn't answer the question. You didn't describe what you are or what you're ideology is. Clearly you are a wacko idealist though. There would be no revolution in Germany based upon opposition to the war once WW1 veterans came back from the front they would crush the revolution and they did. Force makes all the difference in conflicts, and the WW1 veterans and the Freikorps had that.

I didn't say I thought it was possible to succeed or that I supported Bukarhin's views on ending the War. I said I WISHED it had succeeded and that I empathized with Bukarhin.

I don't see the point, all ML's view any variant of socialism as "muh impure ideology".

Also its not my "shitty system" its reality's "shitty system" its a consequence of real historical circumstances that have nothing to do with me.

Why don't you wish everything is sunshine and rainbows well you are at it? This is a cuthroat world where you need to be utterly ruthless to overcome your political opponents. Things don't happen because some higher moral purpose, if you try to show mercy or be moral to your enemies in this barbaric world you will crushed, its always been that way. Stalin was able to secure power for himself because he was ruthless.

It's the inherent repressiveness of ML.

I didn't know socialism was about a despot consolidating power instead of handing over the MOP to the workers.

No its the inherent repressiveness of REALITY. So me any society, socialist or otherwise, any society anywhere in the world that is not based upon the ruthless use of state power to crush any potential enemies.

Ahh yeah, I'm sure 1930's Russia being more repressive than the Tsar, Franco, Mussolini or Pinochet wasn't because of any design flaws of the systems core principles. Historical necessity wins again.

Do you have any idea how many people were killed by the tsar or the fascists? Don't underestimate the ruthlessness and brutality of these regimes. They were just ruthless regimes that just happened to have a right wing ideology rather then a left wing one.

You can show me societies like that which are fascist or otherwise but you cannot show me any society which is anarchist or anti-authoritarian which will last for long. Lets face it if there was such a movement they would be infiltrated by the CIA, because the CIA is the most successful and ruthless organization in the world, and they would do nothing about it because they are too weak and spineless to have a purge.

Everyone who was executed deserved it.

According to the stalinists.

You make up some shit about your enemy being a fascist saboteur and then you can justify ruining a revolution.

Actually the core principles of a society (e.g being socialist) will only expose them to more wreckers, spies, diversions, and killers necessitating more repression. So core principles may have something to do with it. This is mentioned by Stalin

"Take, for example, the bourgeois states. Naive people might think that exceptionally good relations exist between them as states of the same type. But only naive people can think like that. In actual fact, far from neighborly relations exist between them. It has been proved as surely as two times two is four that the bourgeois states send to each other's rear [ask] spies, wreckers, diversionists, and sometimes also killers, who are given the task of penetrating into the institutions and enterprises of these states, of setting up their agencies and "in case of necessity," of disrupting their rear in order to weaken them and to undermine their might. So is the case at the present time. So also was the case in the past. Take, for example, the states in Europe at the time of Napoleon I. France was then swarming with spies and diversionists from the camps of the Russians, Germans, Austrians, and English. And, on the other hand, England, the German states, Austria, and Russia had at that time in their rear no fewer spies and diversionists from the French camp. Agents of England twice made an attempt on the life of Napoleon and several times roused the Vendee peasants in France against the government of Napoleon. And what was the Napoleonic government? A bourgeois government which strangled the French Revolution and retained only those results of the revolution which were advantageous to the big bourgeoisie. Needless to say, the Napoleonic government did not remain in debt to its neighbors and also undertook diversionist measures. So it was in the past, 130 years ago. So the matter stands today, 130 years after Napoleon I. Now France and England are swarming with German spies and diversionists and, on the other hand, Anglo-French spies and diversionists are active in turn in Germany. America is swarming with Japanese spies and diversionists and Japan with American.

Such is the law of the interrelations between bourgeois states.

The question arises, why should the bourgeois states treat the Soviet Socialist state more gently and in a more neighborly manner than towards bourgeois states of the same type? Why should they send to the rear of the Soviet Union fewer spies, wreckers, diversionists, and killers than they send to the rear of the bourgeois states akin to them? From where did this assumption come? Would it not be more true, from the point of view of Marxism, to assume that the bourgeois states would send to the rear of the Soviet Union two and three times more wreckers, spies, diversionists, and killers than to the rear of any bourgeois state?" - 1937

Repression against actual fascists and reactionary forces is one thing, but using that as an excuse for opportunistic murder or exile of actual communists, or for the stagnation of any kind of worker control, is unforgivable.

Less than Stalin, Hitler outdoes him but the others don't come close. Franco's white terror killed approximately 150,000 and if you include other casualties you can get up to 500,000, The Czarist regimes overall killed more, but political killings under the Romanov's were much less frequent than under Stalin.

And now the Soviet Union is gone. All the suffering was for nothing and it's permanently damaged leftist tendencies among the masses. Authoritarianism leads into it's own logical contradictions - there is just as much a tendency for the regime to want to maintain their power even when they are redundant, or when certain measures are redundant, as there is for Capitalist to attempt to subvert threatening movements. There's a difference between repressing subverters, and a despot suppressing personal threats.

What exactly happened on Nov. 7th?

How did the transfer of power occur?

Bolsheviks used a cruiser to fire a shot at the Czar's winter palace where the provisional government was meeting. Trotsky signalled the Bolsheviks to secure key positions and long story short, they took over St Petersburg because the provisional government decided it wasn't worth fighting the Bolsheviks.

This is not "Lenin's general staff". It's Politburo (elected representatives of all Bolshevik factions) in October of 1917.

For example, Kamenev and Zinoviev got kicked out of it - in no small part due to Lenin's demands (he wanted them out of the party, but didn't have enough influence). Hardly Lenin's general staff.

Moreover, only those "shot" (6 out of 24) could be considered "victims of Communism".

"Disappeared/Missing" is bullshit. Stasova died in 1966, for example.

Provisional government got arrested, Soviets (i.e. not only Bolsheviks) took over key points of infrastructure and declared themselves the only government.

I would say, Soviets became recognized only when they started issuing decrees (laws), and people supported those decrees (and started following them).

I.e. successful revolution is based on beheading and paralyzing old power structure, while simultaneously creating a new power structure that people would start to use.

I am a realist, I admit that. We need to take real geopolitical factors into account when we analyze world history. Taken realistically, Marx and Engels were nothing more then obscure intellectuals during their lifetime. At the start of the twentieth century the world was already divided up between European colonial powers, the United States, and Japan. Imperialism and colonialism were dominant and mosly unchallenged. Leftism was a fringe, obscure movement in general.

Then at the start of the first world war, which was an imperialist war, most parties even those that were considered to be on the "left" were in favour of the war and the Zimmerwald left of which Lenin was a part was still a fringe movement for the most part. Leftism was not a good state at the start of the Bolshevik revolution, so to say that it "permanently damaged leftist tendencies among the masses" is ridiculous. The Soviet Union vastly increased the awareness of Marxism and helped to defeat fascism vastly improving the situation for leftists in the world. This is why we can celebrate the Bolshevik revolution.

Authoritarianism is the only thing which leads to a successful movement. The Paris commune only lasted for two months. The Soviet Union lasted for seventy years, and though it may have had a police force to deal with spies and infiltrators as well as an organized army, navy, and airforce to deal with invasion from fascists and it used other authoritarian methods opposed by ultralefts it at least lasted for longer. Seventy years is a lot longer then two months. Every single state that has lasted longer then a couple months such as China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Laos has done so based upon the example of the Soviet Union. This is why we can celebrate the Bolshevik revolution because it had lasting consequences.