Dude you killed rosa lmao

wtf i love getting killed by socdems now

Never forget the the SocDem leader Friedrich Ebert, who counter-signalled so hard he was the one ordered the Freikorps to attack the true Communist revolution during the Spartacist Uprising.

Socdem, not even once, pretty much liberals.

When will you guys realise you're anarkiddies larping as marxists?

Anarchists were right, go campaign for liberals elsewhere.

Top kek that pic

Lmao

That's right buddy, come out of the closet, it's the best thing for you.

When will you realize all sucdems do is hold back true progress? Succdems are the homeopathy of socialism, it's so watered down it's just a ridiculous joke.

MRS. THATCHER WILL BRING REVOLUTION

I was never in the closet and I'm right. But do tell how this time your ten man party will get .1% more of the vote from last election.

Social-Democrats hold back progress, the problem is you guys don't know what Social-Democracy is.

Marx defended the use of elections and believed in reform, Lenin defended the use of elections and believed in reform, Rosa defended the use of elections and believed in reform, etc. But people who became Socialists through facebook memes don't know that.

tbh participating in electoral politics does almost nothing, but not participating does nothing whatsoever. at least by participating, you have the possibility of passing some law or other that forces Porky to use a condom when buttfucking the workers. Also you help move the Overton window a bit to the left, I guess. So long as the party doesn't lose its way, it's a net benefit

And yet all the successful revolutions were through force, not ballots. Lenin defending them in theory meant jack shit, in reality he was still forced to fight a bloody civil war against the Whites to secure power.

We'll keep the 0.1%. You go out and make that #revolution happen, one trashcan at a time.

And where did I or any of the people I mentioned said ballots are enough? Electoral politics help build movements and gain strategic demands, and the Socialists of the Second International, without which the Bolsheviks would be jack shit, knew that well.

And elections played a huge role in making the Bolsheviks a well-known group. If they jumped straight into insurrection they'd be forgotten by history, and you wouldn't even know who Lenin was.

...

...

youtube.com/watch?v=hDqAUSE8zI8
take a look at this documentary, theres a part in this documentary, where the british soldier, says that he thinks most of the attacks are being caused by 30 ira members, thats one battalion of 600, troops chasing 30 guys,

Marx died before revolution, Lenin got his through force, and Rosa failed. Meanwhile states that pursued reform are still capitalist and currently rolling back those hard-won reforms, even when electing supposed "socialists". It's almost like history has shown us that reformism doesn't work while violence does.

You should give it a try, maybe you'd get a full 1% that way.

Bolsheviks took power they found in the streets, the revolution occurred organically, not because 10-20k were members of a small party.

succdems btfo

Moving the window is good, just never turn your back on a socdem. In peace times, they might be our friends, but when push comes to shove, you'll find a thorn sticking out of your chest.

My point was just that history has shown that elections alone are not enough. I agree elections help, but it will always inevitably comes to a conflict, and when it does, the succ dems will be standing with the liberals, because the communists and marxists are too radical for them.

The capitalists will always fight for their possessions, or hire or manipulate people to do it for them.

Literally defeated by an army commanded by a succdem. Like pottery.

You've got it backwards. Bolsheviks seized power in October, first elections were held in November.

Marx lived through 1848, the Paris Commune and many others, you fucking simpleton. All of which reinforced his belief in electoral participation. He blamed the ascension of Napoleon on abstentionism. Learn your fucking history.

Do you know anything about Bolshevik history other than 1917?

"By the beginning of 1911, Lenin concluded that the worst of the counterrevolution was over and that there were signs of a “revival.” The main task was to rebuild the decimated party, especially since there were influential voices who contended that an illegal organization wasn’t necessary— the “liquidators.” And no better opportunity, he argued, existed for doing that than the upcoming elections to the new Duma. In addition to party building, the elections birthed a new social democratic Duma group. (…) From its convening in November 1912 to the onset of the First World War in August 1914, the Bolshevik wing of the party, under Lenin’s direction, accomplished more in the parliamentary arena in as short a time as any revolutionaries had ever done and, probably, ever since— and with more to come"

Rosa failed because the same people who voted abstention jumped into an insurgency against her advice.

Even the states that pursued proletarian revolution rolled back into capitalism, dipshit. Counter-revolutions are a thing, so are counter-reforms, get used to it.

Remember to be horizontalists while you're kicking those trashcans, user.

Oh I was right, you don't know anything about Bolshevik history.

Again, where did I or any of the people I've mentioned state otherwise?

You're arguing against a person in your own head, user.

Exactly, literally defeated.

You don't understand realpolitics, Ebert had to do what he did to preserve power, and keep the socialist foot in the door of German politics

Sure paid off in the end didn't it?

disgusting i wish i was around to assassinate this fascist

you a lainon

Fam, learn your history. The Bolshevik wing of the Social-Democatic party partaked in legal and illegal activity, and joined legal parliamentary activity after 1907. And we're talking Russia, where literally nothing could be achieved by the Duma and very little could be achieved by legal unionism/mobilization.

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/boycott/index.htm#i

Just to let everyone know, this is not the OP and I think German social-democrats after 1914 were pure scum.

The rose fits the Succdem so well too tbh. Looks nice and pretty, smells good, but essentially is useless, and only draws out blood out of all those who are close.

You're right, I was misinformed about imperial russian politics. Thanks for the link.

Hammer and sickle are all I need fam. What is a tool today, is a weapon of defense tomorrow.

Also roses are gay af

ayo hol up
so Rosa is a succdem?
ahahahaha

You've got me, marx died before a successful revolution took place and never directly participated in one. Reformism still doesn't work my liberalpragmatic friend.

Napoleon won with over 13x the votes of both socialist candidates combined. The absentees couldn't pull 5 million men out their ass to vote if they wanted to. Learn math.

I know the revolution happened organically and the Bolsheviks merely seized the opportunity. It wouldn't have stopped had the Bolshevik's abstained from elections, the only difference is that instead of Lenin we'd be arguing over a different Russian and Marxist-Whateverist today.

And there is nothing to suggest that had there not been an insurrection thew german marxists would have succeed in the long term. I guess having another Bordiga or Trotsky would have been nice, assuming she didn't get shipped off by you know who.

And it took the collapse of the USSR and violence to take down sovdem states, while all it takes to see reforms rolled back is for a conservative to get elected. Less even, considering what were socdem parties are rolling back just the same as well. But I guess when you sweep the polls with a whopping .4% of the popular vote you will be able to show us how it's done.

I'll be sure to think about your heroic and productive lever pulling while I do.

lel

You learn more from failure than from success, and I'm sure Lenin himself would tell you that, as his strategies changed completely after 1905. And every failure Marx saw in revolutionary movements made him realise abstentionism is political suicide.

"One should never believe that it is of small significance to have workers in Parliament. If one stifles their voices, as in the case of De Potter and Castian, or if one ejects them, as in the case of Manuel – the reprisals and oppressions exercise a deep effect on the people. If, on the other hand, they can speak from the parliamentary tribune, as do Bebel and Liebknecht, the whole world listens to them. In the one case or the other, great publicity is provided for our principles. To give but one examples: when during the [Franco-Prussian] war, which was fought in France, Bebel and Liebknecht undertook to point out the responsibility of the working class in the face of those events, all of Germany was shaken; and even in Munich, the city where revolutions take place only over the price of beet, great demonstrations took place demanding an end to the war. The governments are hostile to us, one must respond to them with all the means at out disposal. To get workers into Parliament is synonymous with a victory over the governments, but one must choose the right men, not Tolains."

But I guess Karl Marx was just a liberal-pragmatist as well, right?

And sure, he may never have participated in a revolution directly, but he certainly participated in the First International, which Bakunin destroyed.

I'm already wasting too much time teaching you Socialist history, I won't teach you french history as well.

So you literally acknowledge that using electoral institutions as movement-building was what helped made the Bolsheviks successful? Way to argue against your own point, dipshit.

Yes, other than the writings and judgements of all the sensible leaders of the german Communists including Rosa herself, and the fact the alternative failed, and that the equivalent strategy succeeded elsewhere, there's nothing to suggest that. But that's not worthy of getting into because it's all speculation, although the failure of insurgency is not.

First, no it didn't. Several of these states just rejected ML politics and the Communists crumbled like a house of cards. Second, Vietnam, China, Cuba never went through counter-revolutionary violences and also reformed back into capitalism, China while the man who lead the revolution himself was alive. Which, following your reasoning, would make revolutionary politics useless and disproven by history, but I'm sure there's no shortage of cognitive dissonance to square that circle.

" By 1905, 62% of the members were industrial workers (3% of the population in 1897[16]).[17] 22% of Bolsheviks were gentry (1.7% of the total population), 38% were uprooted peasants, compared with 19% and 26% for the Mensheviks. In 1907, 78.3% of the Bolsheviks were Russian and 10% were Jewish (34% and 20% for the Mensheviks). Total membership was 8,400 in 1905, 13,000 in 1906 and 46,100 by 1907 (8,400, 18,000, 38,200 respectively for the Mensheviks). By 1910, both factions together had fewer than 10,000 members.[18]"

"The total population of the Russian Empire was recorded to be 125,640,021 people (50.2% female, 49.8% male; urban 16,828,395 )."

You do the math, since you're so good at it. :^)

Try not to multi-task user, we don't want you tripping like you usually do.

Tankies, anarkiddies, and Marxist-leninists BTFO. Reminder; leftypol is a SocDem board.

SocDems are literally the final evolution of the socialist. Everything else is primordial slime.

Uh it did. Ebert, leader of the Social Democratic party became the President of Germany the same year he crushed the Spartacist uprising. SocDem realpolitics paid off.

And yet after all the failures of parliamentary democracy you still do not get that it does not work and your only defense is people who did not live to see the failure of ML and Socdems advocating for it a century ago.

I have no idea what Marx's opinions would be after witnessing the failures of social democracy, ml, and anarcho-syndicalism. Ultimately it doesn't matter what a resurrected Marx would think because all that is left is his theory, which will be stretched to accommodate everything from Maoism to Communization.

Yes Bakunin destroyed it by forcing Marx to purge the factions he disagreed with. Clearly if it weren't for Bakunin there would have been no disagreement with Marx and Marx would have lead an uprising instead of living off Engels or calling Lassale a jewish nigger.

Napolean got 5.5 million votes, combined the socialist candidates got less than 400k. Unless you think the absentees had 5 million men ready to vote at their command, Napoleon would have won regardless with his massive 70+% share of the popular vote.

No, I'm arguing that the Bolshevik success was due to the uprising in 1917, not any pathetic movement building from the ballot box. The uprising did not occur because a small party participated in elections, it occurred because the population revolted. If there had been no socialist party participating in elections, a leadership would have formed organically due to the material conditions. Given the outcome, that could have been better than what occurred.

Yes, the attempts to force a revolution have ended miserably. Clearly that is an indication that we can not expect a vanguard to guide the proletariat to revolution, we can not reform capitalism through voting, and we can't have a few hundred people build an isolated commune or blow shit up. We need an organic revolution that isn't hijacked by a party elite and is a true mass movement of the proletariat. I suppose even if conditions were right you would reject this and insist we try voting a few more times.

We aren't talking about the Bolshevik party membership, we're talking about your party. I know you guys like to dress up as sovietboos on the weekend but that doesn't actually make you Bolsheviks.

Don't worry, laughing at your impotence isn't near the mental challenge of kicking a trashcan.