Why did the bolsheviks destroy socialists institutions?

pic related, words of the breadman himself

Jealous of real socialism

Trotsky was a Faggot. That's why

I feel like that's using utopian in the other way. I mean like utopian vs scientific. Makhno believed he could just invalidate all money and that would give us a functioning currencyless society, while Marxists realise that you need to destroy the material and social conditions that made money useful in the first place, and this takes time.

Read the damn pamphlet. It supports syndicalist praxis as a foremost element, advocating for a core of ideologically concurrent anarcho-communists working together to promote anarchist ideas as solutions to issues and defend the self-organization of the proletariat. On the other hand, Leninist vanguardism and Blanquism seek to use similar methods to seize state power. This difference is important, because whereas Blanquism and its long-lost child Leninism end up unilaterally imposing a certain vision of how society ought to look (this is the utopianism which Marx criticized, by the way!) at gunpoint via the state machinery of the old society, platformism seeks to empower and defend what arises from the actions of the working class itself. Platformism, far more than Blanquism or Leninism, spearheads the movement to abolish the present state of things.

Makhno allowed the free soviets (which had formed spontaneously, just as predicted by Kropotkin and Bakunin's ideas) to collectivize property. Unfortunately, he was a bit too hands-off and ignored the miners and industrial workers rather than organizing their production (as a consequence of the unfortunately agrarian character of Kropotkin's theorizing), which probably cost him the war. (on another note, this is exactly why Makhno integrated syndicalist ideas into platformism)

As for whether it's "scientific" or not, Marx praised Proudhon as the first exponent of a scientific socialism - whereas the utopians such as Saint-Simon and Owen and Comte and Fourier had extremely detailed, a-priori plans for how everything would work, Proudhon gave a rough sketch of how a future system might function and what institutions would need to be created, going off what he learned from other works in Lyon.

Kropotkin's works are an even better exemplar of scientific socialism, arguably even more so than Marx's. He conducted biological and anthropological studies on the tendencies of humans under particular circumstances and extrapolated them in tandem with what he had seen in past uprisings of the proletariat to what libertarian institutions would arise out of the ashes of the old society and what concrete actions would need to be taken to preserve them. It is in the light of this ethos that the ironic quote of is made in the Conquest Of Bread.

Where the hell is this coming from? Bolshevik propaganda? It's well-known that they're liars. Read "Stalin Didn't Fall From The Moon", an essay on the matter.

Meant to say "going off what he learned from other workers in Lyon". His ideas of worker-owned cooperatives didn't arise from delusional ramblings, but from the concrete desires of the proletarians who he talked to.

Because they are counter revolutionaries.

I wasn't saying Kropotkin or Bakunin were not scientific - although then again when it comes to the state you may be able to argue they're, which is kind of what Lenin did in State and Revolution without out right saying they specifically are.

As for Makhno, here's where I'm getting that info:

isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

Granted it's probably a little bias, but it's sourced and I would expect the core points to still hold true.

I don't get what Stalin has to do with this, or is the essay not about him?

...

Shocker. Most of the points made are just parroting the claims made by Ivanov and those who used his "accounts" back in the day to justify Bolshevik intervention in the region. That's not to say there aren't legitimate criticisms of the Free Territory to be found, but most of this is old hat bullshittery.

Usually these sorts of papers tend to wait until your half-way in before it goes the "they're actually reactionaries" route. Bold, but equally stupid.

...

The essay's about how Lenin and Trotsky definitively set the stage for him, eliminating democracy even before the civil war and outlawing the factory committees. It also refutes a lot of the stories about the Free Territory.
Makhno may not have known how to deal with an industrial proletariat liberated from capitalism at the time, but his later works call specifically for solutions to that problem. It's not as if that ruins all anarchy, like how Leninism is ruined by the fact that Lenin betrayed the fundamental principles of all socialism and set up state capitalism.

HAHAHA

Even the fucking commies knew communism doesn't work. It reverted back to capitalism/fascism as soon as commies got power.

Interesting right?

Anarkiddies are facism enablers.Killing them was a good thing.

Trotsky dindu nuffin

You know, you're basically right. The Bolsheviks did in fact realise that they had no idea how to implement actual communism once they won power. Having no other way forward, they implemented social democracy at the barrel of the gun.

I think it's really fucking important that anarchists and socialists alike actually learn that lesson. At the moment it seems like none of them have, because fucking none of them seem to put any real effort toward figuring out how their precious communism is supposed to work on anything more than the most vague and general level.

If (heaven forbid) they manage to luck into power again, these totally unprepared chucklefucks will just fuck things up for everybody again and create USSR 2.

A classless, stateless, moneyless society. This is not a vague vision, some commandment delivered from on high. It is a set of design specs.