Are anti-Bolsheviks within the left even aware that their party was the only major proletarian force in the country at...

Are anti-Bolsheviks within the left even aware that their party was the only major proletarian force in the country at the time? From some of the shit you'll read their critics seem to think surrendering Russia to reactionary or pseudo-communist elements would've been a good thing. Really I think such criticisms are just a result of a lack of self-confidence within the left. We always here about how we should learn the lessons of history to 'avoid bureaucracy' or whatever, in the process totally ignoring the real achievements of Bolshevism. Anti-Bolshevik and anti-Soviet sentiment within communist circles can only be seen as plainly bizarre. It's even dangerous really as their ruthless treatment of a small, isolated revolution totally ignores the all too real possibility of another failure of the international proletariat.

Agree.

Honestly, the liberal provisorial government would have been a lot better. Statism is a right-wing deviation and I don't even know why anarchist bother to pretend we're working towards the same end as some of these people.

...

Leninists are basically liberals. Just like liberals they seek to take down a system of top-down hierarchy that exploits the labour of workers and replace it with another. They think that the state is an extention of the bourgeois, when it clearly is its own hierarchy that merely benefits from cooperating with the bourgeois.

Honestly, if we're to cooperate with Leninists, we might as well cooperate with AnCaps too. At least under liberalism the state and the bourgeois keep each other in check.

We need to either disassociate Leninists with the left or disassociate ourselves with the left, because all these people want is other masters to exploit them.

anarkiddies should read more

Every time I start to respect anarchists a bit, you come out with this shit.

this tbh fam

It is, but it's not just an extension of it like Marxist counter-revolutionary dogma would have you believe. The bourgeois and the state often clash. The only thing they have in common is that they must both exploit workers and have top-down hierarchy.

Anarchist must either denounce those who want to empower the state over the bourgeois as non-leftists or distance themselves from the "left", because we have as little in common with the Leninists deviation as we have with liberals or even AnCaps, who are all anti-socialist movements.

History has proven this many times, as Marxists keep stabbing us in the back. We don't have any reason to trust these people as their whole purpose runs counter to us.

...

kek

this seems like b8 tbh, even anarkiddies write better than this

pic related

Leninist's are not liberals, dont be fucking stupid. Equating them with liberalism means you lack a basic understanding of what liberalism or Leninism is.
Leninist's, if anything, are a right wing deviation of the left more similar to fascism than liberalism.
If we look at Mussolini, we can see one of his greatest inspirations was Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

I find it hilarious how idealist the Lenin fanboys are.

Leninists just don't know when to give the fuck up. Your ideology is dead, a failure that has set the cause of socialism back a century, perhaps perpetually. No Leninist state has progressed into socialism, suppressing all revolutionary activities outside of the centralized mechanisms of a state with the pretensions of being dedicated to proletarian revolution simply causes said state to preserve its own hegemony over the means of production, just like the capitalists. Once the state controls the means of production it establishes its own interests as a ruing class, perpetually at odds with those who it rules over.

You Lenin fanboys think you're any better than tankies, but you're really just as much of an embarrassment to the movement. Lenin was quite possibly the greatest enemy of socialism in the 20th century. Imagine what the working class could have achieved, what freedoms we as socialists could have won, if the Bolsheviks had not sabotaged the cause of socialism. The idea that the only road to socialism is the destruction of independent working class movements and organizations and the maintenance of state capitalism is frankly bizarre.

They're not liberals, but they are gradualists and essentially reformists. Once their wonderful professional revolutionaries take total power the state will eventually just wither away and totally not attempt to preserve its own power at all costs, promise!!! :^)

You guys use the same tired rhetoric as well. "Anarchists can't organize, they'd be defeated by fascists…" You forget that in Catalonia, they weren't defeated by fascists, the anarchists were crushed by the Republic's violent assault which was backed and enacted partly by the state communists. Communists also never allowed certain industries from going to the workers' hands. You guys really help turning things to shit

What power are you talking about? This "power" is precisely what will withers away. What kind of power could an instrument designed to enforce a class' rule over the other classes still have in a classless society?

The Bolsheviks gerrymandered their way to power and subverted the will of the worker's councils at every chance they got. They retained capitalist bosses and wage-labour because of "historical necessity", so I apologize if I can't take too seriously the idea that they were a "proletarian force".

Lenin once wrote that "frankly admitting a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the circumstances which gave rise to it, and thoroughly discussing the means of correcting it-that is the earmark of a serious party." We need to learn from the Bolshevik's mistakes instead of making excuses for them.

state power obvs. And there's no historical indication that any Leninist state has or will ever lead to a society free of social classes.

Again, this board can't get beyond this simplistic notion that the State is merely does whatever porky wants it to do. Does porky have a lot of influence over what the State does? Absolutely! Can a State do something that clashes with porky's interest? Also, fucking yes.

Failure to realize this is what creates idiotic posts like this . Honestly, I'm impressed by the mental gymnastics it must of took to write that.

But the state precisely doesn't clash with the interests of the bourgeoisie. It consistently advances them. Concessions are made by the state on behalf of porky when revolution is imminent and the workers need to be pacified.

The state only ever works against the bourgeoisie when it becomes a worker's state/DotP and at that point it represents the new ruling class i.e. the proletariat.

After they stomped the rest of the leftwing parties out, maybe. It's amazing how the pro-bolshies will sweep the leftist blood on their hands under the rug by trying to equate it with the fight against the whites, capitalists, and other reactionary forces in the area.

The only Marxists I think are acceptable are the libertarian Marxists. Everyone else, should really just die off.

It also reproduces that class. You can't abolish classes without abolishing the state.

this

OP here. I wasn't expecting this thread to become such a shit-show. Recalling how other historical discussions about the USSR and Russian Revolution usually play out I even went out of my way to try and make my post as unprovocative as possible. Suffice it to say it didn't work out but at least my thread gave the anarkiddies another chance to embarrass themselves publicly again.

If liberal parties like the SR's and Mensheviks are your definition of left-wing then we can see where you stand on the issue. At least the second poster was honest enough to admit having Russia fall to anti-communists would've been a preferable outcome. I'm not going to say anarchists are naive enough to just lie down and accept bourgeois violence, I'm sure if you encountered reactionary forces you too would use whatever measures were necessary to subdue them. But as long as you attack working people who use a state to defend themselves you'll always be our enemies.

And yes, you are attacking working people. You can try to portray yourself as attacking 'capitalists' like Lenin if you want but you won't be able to get around the fact that the Bolsheviks were by far the most popular choice among the urban proletariat.

who the fuck is anti-bolshevik?
bolshevism is literally the only thing about leftists that didnt make us look like cucks. we had a strong leader and should have allied with germany to fight against bourgeois US and britain.
long live lenin

That's rich because it was the Leninists who literally wiped out the anarchists. We're embarrassing ourselves? Leninists participated in one of the biggest and potentially promising revolutions of modern history and they fucked up big! They backed-tracked socialism and gave us so much anti-socialist propagandic-drive luggage to deal with. As an anarchist, I'm fine working with Marxists but only if their libertarian Marxists.

>>>Holla Forums

...

The Nazis were popular too, is attacking them attaching the working people?

Never seen so much evidence in one thread for why Kronstadt was objectively correct.

gee

I only praise the bolsheviks for making Stalin got into power.

Being a real dickhead aside, he was a good leader with his "socialism in one country" ideology.

...

Trotsky was right.

Those darn menshies, trying to argue for a gradual approach to socialism that followed Marx's theory more closely. Truly the reactionaries.

Lol I guess the other leftists that got purged weren't working class now.

Admit it, Stalin was the best marxist and the reason he's got so successful is that he wasn't a marxist at all.

Stalin was a fascist and the only reason you think he was successful is because you are a fascist too.

He certainly was more successful than Lenin, Marx and other marxists.

Show me where in Marxist theory it tells you to align with counter-revolutionaries against other Marxists ;^).

...

No, not really. Relatively speaking, Thomas Sankara did better.

Marx was a failed journalist who lived on his friend's money.

Lenin made a successful revolution.

Stalin made the USSR into a superpower.

Face it, bitch, Stalin is top dog.

Who's Thomas Sankara?

Marx was much more successful. His works are still very influential despite the unending attempts at discrediting him. Compare this to Lenin and Stalin who are remembered as failures and the biggest fuck ups of history.

How is his Marx's successful when all of those who use his ideology become "failures".

And how is Stalin a bigger fuckup than Marx?

...

It's the truth.

Marx wrote books.

Stalin made a country into a superpower that rivaled the United States.

Lenin's revolution failed to achieve any of the goals they've set out. Stalin's USSR was only socialist in name, managed to nearly wipe out every leftist fraction that refused to suck his dick and convinced most of the world that his fascism has something to do with communism.

From a leftist point of view, both were failures.

What is fascist about Stalin?

Because their use of his works as ideology was completely disconnected from their actual practice.

Too bad we are not arguing from a leftist point of view, we are arguing from the who holds the most power point of view.

And from that point of view, Stalin reigned supreme and was the most successful of all.

If they stick to Marx's ideology at 100%, it's even debatable that they could get into power at all.

Marxists seem very dogmatic, and very ideological when it comes to their theories.

That's why I've said they are only successful from a fascist point of view but complete failures for everybody else.

No go back to Holla Forums retard

Yeah, because holding power and doing actual shit that matters like controlling a country is "fascist".

This is why leftists are bookworm, they can't do shit.

What was fascist?

How was the Soviet Union fascist?

He actually brought back traditions, patriotism and ultimately the Church to the USSR.

He also purged jews and deported non-whites.

And the reason fascists aren't is because they don't fundamentally want to challenge the system.

Fascists must REALLY want to suck that führer dick…

According to this then the USA is actually even better. They hold the entire world by its balls.

Lenin challenged the system and usurped power.

Stalin usurped power from Lenin.

They all challenged the system more than Marx did.

Indeed, the USA is the 1st of the world.

As opposed to sucking a journalist's dick?

What a pointless point then.

"The people with most power have the most power!"

The fact he got power makes him superior to the ones who didn't, especially when Stalin was a poor thug when he started out

It's fucking irrelevant. He's really good at doing something he wasn't wanted to be doing.

Thus a paradox, if you faggots wanted him to do like you said, it's arguably he would do anything good at all.

He already did nothing good to start with.

Or, put another way.

None of those things are exclusive to fascism. The Stalinist economy was completely different from the fascist economic model. The way in which the economies are handled are fundamental to the ideologies themselves.

This. The idea of a (bourgeois) state "clashing with capitalists' interests" is just reformist opportunism.


You must abolish the bourgeois state, yes. But you need a tool for that; an organisation designed to enforce the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie despite its resistance. The instrument for the resistance of the bourgeoisie is the bourgeois state. Our instrument is the proletarian state.

They managed to get a mainly feudal country to the highest stage of capitalism in a few decades. They would probably have done better if they hadn't been so isolated.

Indeed. But honnestly, the fault resides at least as much in the late 10's / early 20's western communists than in the bolsheviks themselves.

The same can be said about EVERY "socialist" ideology, for if ANY of their followers had ever succeeded yet, we would all live in a socialist society right now.

The idea that a country needs to go through capitalism in order to get to socialism is revisionist bullshit m8. Despite claims to the contrary, Marx never thought this.


The difference is that, more than anyone else, the Leninists had their chance. Multiple times. And they failed. If the method isn't working then it's time to try something else.

...

Catalonia

...

Not sure I agree or not, but that's not the point anyway. Bringing Russia to capitalism was one of the goals they had set out, and they achieved it.
As for the other goal (communism), my opinion is that no one could have achieved it at the time, given their isolation.

Are you kidding? The bolcheviks succeeded so well in bringing Russia to capitalism, they were crushed by it. They never had a chance to do anything since then.


Catalonia didn't last. How is that a successfull transition to communism? Communism is global, or it isn't communism.

Feudalism was capitalism then?


USSR was indeed actually capitalist though.

Face it, the capitalist mode of production is neccessary for to build the foundations for socialism and later communism. That's why the hope was that revolutions would succeed in Germany, England and France, since those industrialised, capitalist countries had the material conditions necessary for socialism and could then export the revolution to the rest of the world.

Jeez, I wonder who that could be hiding behind the mask.

And yet when anarchists point out that the USSR was a state capitalist system it's NO NO NO ITS ACTUALLY SOCIALISM

Fuck you two faced traitors.

He looks like a brit though, your funny meme doesn't work here

USSR was capitalist. Actual marxists haven't waited for anarchists to point that out. Actually, Lenin himself kept pointing that out until the day he died.

Then there are a hell of a lot of completely historically illiterate leftists on leftypol

He looks way more like pic related.

There is a hell of a lot of completely historically illiterate leftists everywhere, unfortunately.

But, well…

I skimmed through the entire thread and couldn't find a single person who ever said the USSR was ever anything but capitalist. You've only proven that 'tankies' are the invisible boogeymen of this board.

That nose is piggy/smashed-potato-like, stereotypical jewish nose would be much longer and more massive.

Well, that's true but it did have a slight hook.

The CNT established a liberal democracy when they instituted the Anti-Fascist Militia Committee. Nominally socialist.

Prove it, bitch

In this thread, no, but M-Ls in the past have tried saying the USSR had abolished capitalism during the Stalin period.

There is ny Leninist state. There is no Leninist conception of the party.

(1) The Soviet State was not the goal. The capturing of political power in 1917 was seen as one moment within the transformation of social relations within Russia that could only be completed with revolution in the Western European states. Proletarian elements failed in the latter respect–as such the soviet policy was essentially shifted towards maintaining a position within global capital that would support the revolutionary forces throughout the world. In this respect, the Soviets succeeded. The goal was never to be communism in one state but a mediation of global revolution through the particular, state-based revolutions that would be its first manifestation.

(2) Lenin reformulated the Bolsheviks based on the conditions the party found itself operating within. After state repression post-1905, it was secretive, centralized, disciplined. In the revolutionary upheaval of 1917, the party was radically transformed. An overwhelming majority of Bolsheviks were new bolsheviks and relations between local organizations, non-Bolshevik revolutionary forces, and the Bolshevik central committee were in constant flux. The central committee itself wasn't unified into a strict party line until after the civil war.