Russian Revolution

What can we learn from the Russian revolution?

Other urls found in this thread:

Leninism fucking sucks.

if you're going to purge people purge the right people

Lenin was a revisionist

I've never read history, the posts.



how'd that anarchism work out for you bud?

the Soviet central planning and it's 5 year plans massively modernised and urbanised the Russian people.Sure it wasn't a workers state but they did institute capitalism on an insanely fast scale that wouldn't have happened under a constitutional parliament

Whats more important. Modernizing or Not killing millions and Ruining communism for ever.

Stopped reading here because this never happened. It's fascinating how anarchos are not even interested in the historical reasons and theoretical underpinnings given for Lenin's model.

To anyone who doesn't want to stay an ignoramus:

That you should never give power to someone as power hungry as Lenin.

And again:

I read a biography on him. He was very cold to the point of being happy when he saw peasants starving to death because it meant capitalism was starting to take over. He was a bourg most of his life and didn't care. He dissolved the workers soviets because he didn't win and he could have gotten his way if he had just formed a coalition with the Mensheviks. He infused Marxism with agrarian socialist terrorism. He wasn't a very nice guy at all.

Put as much effort as you can into aiding international revolution as it will determine if yours succeeds or not.

never put autists in a position of power

Zizek says that Lenin got very emotional, like when listening to classical music he would cry, and would hold himself back in order to maintain his revolutionary ruthlessness.

What source did you get that from?

The Tsars weren't that bad

Willing to bet samefaggotry tbh.

He may have been emotional in some aspects but he also seemed very focused on the revolution. One time a fellow part member proposed they educate workers so they could be more literate. Or feed starving peasants. He said that this didn't help the revolution so he wouldn't do it. I read a biography on him:

I suppose it's not unreasonable to suggest Lenin had some kind of unhealthy obsession with revolution.

But he was a genius tbf.

As for cold and emotionless, I don't think I would go that far. He was married so clearly he could feel love, and make time for a relationship over the revolution.

I'm busy making a state without calling it one.

It also touches on hie relationship. He was a bit manipulative.


Well, he loved cats so, it's ok.

More people died under the Tsars than Stalin, discounting World War 1 obviously, although Czar dickless did join it of his own accord joining stupid alliances.

Stalin was a godawful piece of shit, but there is a difference between trying to make a better society and letting people die through neglect and not giving a shit like most of the Tsars did.

so he was basically ultra-spooked

Are you talking about every Tzar ever?

What do you mean?

I warned you about states bro

a spook is something people serve that isn't their own, when someone dedicates himself so autistically to revolution, he is therefor ultraspooked

lmao he works for a literal porky think tank

True. He also had a pretty big ego. With the whole "Making a one party state when you lose an election instead of forming a coalition with the mensheviks instead" thing.

I don't know much about him, because I'm relatively new to leftism. But he seems to have had some decent insight into Stalin near his death:

They site things from the soviet archives. Just because porky sites them doesn't mean they aren't true. I see the porky bias in bashing Lenin for stupid things but they do have a point.

I'm sure Lenin taking glee in the suffering of the proletariat was preserved in the Soviet archives.

Stuff his family wrote about him was.

I mean on Average, Russia is a country where a lot of people die due to a lack of infrastructure and planning. This was more True under the Czars than it was for the Soviet Union but one is demonized and the other is not.

The same is true for China the hundred or so years before Mao's China were godawful times to be alive there and yet no one seems to mention this when criticizing the communists and the genuine modernizations and improvements they made to the country. More people died in random rebellions like Taiping than they did in meme famines but all we ever hear about is the famines. The end of the Chinese royal dynasty was also forcing people to use outdated technology despite western and even in the case of Japan eastern improvements to their old shit. That small fact alone probably lead to a lot of unnecessary starvation.

The truth is both of these countries are just really hard to control and maintain and they have had a tougher time than most modernizing. Couple that with the fact that yes both Mao and Stalin are rightfully hated as megalomaniacs who stifled their growth in a lot of ways and ended the dream of political freedom there but the blame is not 100% theirs or "communism" like people seem to think. A lot of the problems were already endemic to both countries and people were genuinely trying to fix shit even if they were missteps like the "Great leap forward."

And stuff some of the agrarian socialists in the group he joined said about him.

Grover Furr sites shit from the archives constantly. You can create whatever narrative suits your purpose by highlighting some things and ignoring others. People with an obvious bias like Service and Furr should be taken with a grain of salt.

What mao did was fucking retarded though>That sparrow shit and the mass production of dog shit pig iron had no benefits to it and just made a massive problem.Whereas the collectivisation of Russian agriculture did lead,eventually, to higher output of food and lead to the workforce becoming more urbanised rather than agrarian pesantry

I did take them with a grain of salt but still. Some of the things he said that were from the soviet archive seemed pretty undeniably damning unless he had literally said "Uh never mind" right afterwards.

To be fair, the aim was to finally abolish parliamentary style multi-party Democracy (which is bourgeois at it's base) and form a Party headed by the most advanced and resolute sections of the working class.

That may have been the goal but the end result was a pretty awful oligarchy.

I study agriculture, Russia still suffers to this day from the fordist policy of the soviet union, what a European farmer does all by himself and his son, a Russian farmer employees 20 men for, one tractor driver, one mechanic, one harvester operator.. the tediousness and alienated nature of such work creates an alienated and demotivated workforce, who rather drink themselves into stupor than work a job they hate at a farm they care nothing about.

The soviet union could better be call the fordist union.

That's due to a variety of factors. The actual idea was good.

Like what? Can you cite anything in particular?

Why do you think it happened?

Biggest reason being Russia was still an agricultural state. The most advanced and resolute chunk of the working class that is suppose to administrate the Party didn't exist which naturally allowed the bureaucracy to grow and consume the Soviets, consume any trace of Democracy and freedom, and to completely control the USSR.

Another reason is the failure of the International Proletarian Revolutions. With the only real successful Revolution being in Russia, and with the dark realization setting in that Capitalism wasn't going to be overthrown in a series of revolutions in the 1920's, the bureaucracy ossified and became paranoid, so to speak.

Another reason is that the Soviets just suffered a massive defeat from Germany in WW1, but also a Revolution, and now a civil war and being invaded by multiple countries. Everyone were at the Bolshevik's throats. What did you expect them to do? Throw around sunshine and chocolates and hope for the best?

Like when a massive famine started and some people in the agrarian socialist party he joined proposed giving out some food but he said that the famine was a good thing and that it was a sign of capitalism starting in Russia. So he refused to help feed peasants or workers while he literally lived in his family mansion.

So when he was an edgy teenager?

I did say the great leap forward was a mistake. Part of the problem with Mao was he was a modern military thinker with an ancient agrarian mindset domestically. He knew on some level China needed to increase it's agricultural and industrial output but didn't really understand how that could be accomplished and when you become a dictator you are essentially in a hostage situation with everyone else in the country so you start to become weary of anyone smarter than you who can make good decisions concerning the countries economic structure. Mao was bad my contention is that his bad wishful thinking was better than what China previously had.

True, but compare that to the sixty starving peasants working a mud patty under the Czars. The structure of the soviet union as it went on also led to incentivizing work for works sake over being productive or learning new techniques because the people at the top wanted to claim larger number outputs and land tilled any quantifiable number that sounds impressive to hold against the other party bosses.

The funny thing is we think this is a problem of communism or top down state control of the economy. Where as David Graeber points out this same thing is starting to happen in the west with CEO's and government figures. Numbers with a loose connection to reality are more important than the actual output of the economy or the results of the thing trying to be achieved.

He wasn't a teenager at that time.

Guys I got an idea! Lets not make food and make shitty steal out of pots in our backyards instead!

Not to disrupt your discussion, but what are your thoughts on this article:

He said it in 1891 while living in Samara. He was 21. He could've been a completely emotionless dude but I don't thinks it's fair to categorize him by a few quotes picked out by Robert Service from when he was a young guy.

Shitty steal that they're starting to sell in bulk across the globe now. Because America and most western countries made a dumb decision to undercut their own steel industries and rely on the comparative advantage of the Chinese for almost everything.

Dont do socialism in a feudal state.

Also dont trust georgians.


damn us both

Please find a copy and read them

The fuck are you talking about, kids.

No sense with historical facts.


pic related

the fuck, why would he kill doggos?

Russia has a bit of a problem with dogs.

NEVERMORE you lovable goof.

Street dogs. They are pretty smart and adapted to city life, like doves. They take the subway from their sleeping places to the food rich inner city, steal food from stands, people eating in the streets and beg for food by playing cute. They also kick over trashcans and the like.
Their population has been increasing as a side effect of the tendency of cities to throw away a lot of food and the gubbernment decided that

Only in Russia

Revolution requires a revolutionary vanguard. Even anarchists need to realize this.

Syndicalist vanguardism is what we need

Gave me cancer.

Basically this:

If you are going to create a vanguard party revolution and you are as smart as Lenin don't die of a stroke 2 years later.






I've thought the discards might be a good source of pig iron but I figured the Chinese were gonna pretend the landfills didn't exist for a few more decades.