British Library exhibition treats Russian Revolution from a hostile standpoint

By Thomas Scripps and Paul Mitchell
12 August 2017

Other urls found in this thread:]


>Such moralistic drivel is answered by Trotsky in “What is a Revolutionary Situation”[] where he explains, “The revolutionary situation … begins only from the moment that the economic and social premises of a revolution produce a break in the mentality of society and its different classes.”

Not surprising. When I talk to liberals it usually doesn't need Stalin. Lenin alone is a genocidal dictator that erected a dystopian nightmare for the average libshit.

Every tool Stalin used extensively - Gulags, Political Commissars, purges, show trials - was put in place by Lenin.


Damn, this is probably the hottest picture I've ever seen!

It means that anyone who dislikes Stalin and know a bit about history would also dislike Lenin.

None of those things were bad.

We'll have to disagree on this one

That doesn't really follow.

But it does…
Stalin used extensively these tools. + Lenin put them in place + People dislike Stalin [for using these tools] => People also dislike Lenin

No, it doesn't, because the tools themselves account for neither the craftsman, nor the project, nor the guild.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a fascist would try and advocate such a dishonest and reductionist view of things.

I visited the exhibition with some friends a month ago and it is as described in the article. Very much told from a liberal perspective with not a single mention of the genocidal intent of the whites. Still it the exhibits themselves were interesting and some of Lenin's books were on sale outside.

To the freikorps with ya.

This sounds nice but makes little sense. Lenin created and used these tools ; Stalin used them more extensively.
It's not as if you could use show trials for anything else than repression, anyways.

No, actually it's worse.

Is British history always this awful? I just watched a documentary about the revolution, and it was an utter disgrace. They gave no time to any theory. They did not even say what exactly a "soviet" was. Instead, they framed the entire revolution in the context of a family feud between the Ulyanovs and the Romanovs. They do not even mention the other factions in the civil wars.

The worst part was one bit with a historian who seemed to be describing the difference in civic organization between the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet. He describes the Provisional organization as representative liberalism and then cut him off before he could describe the soviet. I swear to god, the next two words out of his mouth after the cut were "direct democracy."

As usual the fascist will use any trick to try and obfuscate their despicable sophistry. Lenin might have "created" these tools and "used" these tools, but a man that made and used the hammer to build a house isn't the same as a man making and using that hammer to build a crucifix.

You try and strip away all context and sense to create a void where you can impose your crooked bourgeois equivocation to paint revolutionaries as the seed of all evil. As always the reactionary core of the demsoc Rosentots betrays their true intentions and beliefs, conflating revolutionary necessity with reactionary repression in order to defend their own abhorrent bourgeois collaborationism.

This is your brain on ideological purism.

Where do you get all these hot Japanese women pics?

Nothing to write about tbh, shit like that happens everywhere all the fucking time
There's so much revisionism I'm starting to believe History is dead and we killed it

its still worth seeing. lenins hand written request to study at the library under a pseudonym, propaganda directed at british soldiers during the civil war and a few other rare bits of propaganda are highlights.

the last bit of the exhibition with excerpts from soviet film and shostakovich playing in the background is great.

WTF I hate french for inventing guillotines and using them during french revolution now

It's the analogy you introduced. I guess it's only natural you'd think it wild since it bent back and bit you.
Then neither is a hammer a tool that can be used "for a variety of purposes." In a literal sense, a hammer has only one purpose, which is to deliver kinetic energy to a precise point. The end to which this purpose is employed though may vary.
How can context make Lenin "slightly less guilty" if these tools supposedly have only one "purpose?" Political oppression is political oppression is political oppression…

So because Obama bombed 7 countries in the middle east we gotta hate the guy who came up with aerial bombardment?

That's cause Marx was himself a revisionist at the end of his life.

Shit, that was probably Wilbur spitting on Orville's head.