But: if socialism requires violence it betrays its own humanism. It is ever under threat for the re-expropriation by the worst of the returned capitalists and socialism's own *nomenklatura* and they will justify this theft by reference to socialism's own struggles to maintain itself through violence. The first form of socialism to succeed will have such widespread approval as to be completely peaceful.
@spinoza1111 Reality is not cut and dried like that. Socialism is not about appealing to everyone, it's about the working class. Members of the other classes can join us after the fact, but not in their current form. It only cares about the working class because they're the only class who produce anything and who can end the violence of class systems. That's all that matters.
@borbo23 'Work" and "producing" are not the names of properties that people possess. They name the relationship of a human activity to the means of production, and this understanding allows us to see that anyone can be considered a worker when in this relationship. It accounts for the unpaid labour of women and that of the white collar. Traditional Marxism fetishizes a relationship to the tools of production that's been long outdated by automation.
@spinoza1111 Indeed, it does need to adjust over time, but the basic premise remains the same. Marxists have always embraced means of increasing production. Automation is not new, it's just gotten technically more sophisticated than cotton gins.
The working class are the only ones who actually perform labour and services. Marxists simply believe that the people who perform the labor inherently own the means of production. After all, they built it.
Even partially socialistic policies including capitalism at war creates real wealth which is irresistible to the capitalists once they retake power. The computer was developed as part of war capitalism in the USA as the large mainframe. Miniaturization in 1973 was the ONLY innovation: the early "microcomputers" were simply small and underpowered mainframes.
The Bolsheviks did set out to create a one-party state. Lenin believed that the Party was the Proletariat, and that since the Proletariat was scientifically the most advanced class, it could not admit any other parties. This made some sense since otherwise, the parliamentary socialist party will build a partial socialism only to have it completely dismantled by a successor capitalist party, whether that party takes control through an election (Thatcher 1980) or a coup (Pinochet 1973).
@lucybaby6 There was initially a revolution by many elements of the center and left, including liberals, anarchists, and communists. This was a hugely popular movement but quickly failed beacuse no one except the Bolsheviks actually kept their promises (namely withdrawing from the first world war and land redistribution).
The Bolsheviks stuck to what they said and because of that another popular revolt overthrow the coalition government and installed the Bolsheviks.
@lucybaby6 From the beginning, as portrayed here, the Bolsheviks had the support of the revolutionists in the military, which gave them a large amount of clout.
It's worth noting that the second revolution was not something the Bolsheviks created - they were caught off-guard by the suddenness and had to hurry to react in time.
The Bolsheviks' State Capitalist coup dealt working class socialism / communism such a blow it still has not recovered from it. Capitalism is desperate / opportunistic and uses any means to continue its profitable rule. When the former KGB boss becomes Russia's president, and along with the Chinese "Communists" shamelessly make a killing in profits sharing their mass exploits with "former rivals" (now part of the "world government") that should tell the most sheepish of sheeple something.
@Evolving001 While the Bolsheviks were far from perfect, they were hardly capitalists in disguise. There was a great amount of socialism in the USSR and it was an effective state until Reagan sped up the cold war to the point they went bankrupt trying not to be overwhelmed by western nukes.
China is no longer a socialist state and is definitely capitalist now.
However, there was never a Bolshevik coup after the red revolution . . . they were simply put in power.
For those naive enough to believe the Soviet propaganda and its fossil remnants, be warned that Socialism / Communism was co-opted within few months after the working class Soviets (workers' councils) toppled the old regime. But the Bolsheviks who were led by small bourgeoisie / capitalists in the form of intellectuals and bureaucrats made a coup against the workers by seizing the power from the working class.
No. It is ridiculous to propose that Marxist intellectuals intended nothing of what they did from 1917 on. It is absurd to claim the fascist movements of the 1920s and 1930s, in the face of their strong socialist roots and socialist themes, were somehow versions of "extreme" capitalism. It is simply stupid to allow Marxists to evade their crimes by playing semantic games with words used to describe them.
What the Bolsheviks did to Russia was obscene. Unlike the Nazis, they got away with it.
@DrCruel "National socialism" and genuine socialism are entirely separate things. It also should be mentioned that Mussolini was at one time a member of the communist party and then later changed sides.
You clearly are very ignorant about these things. Did you use cliff notes versions of the many books you claim to have read?
@borbo23 The German national socialists were actually more authentically socialist than the Russian Bolsheviks. As for Mussolini, he was more closely associated with the anarchists, but yes - he was the editor of a Marxist newspaper. Thus how the roots of fascism derive from Marxist theory.
I thought you were trying to disagree with me. That's what your insults about my intelligence seem to imply.
@DrCruel Uh, no, German National Socialism was about as far from genuine socialism as you can get. You must be joking, right? I can't imagine someone could be this stupid. The Nazis were supported by major industry; they lowered wages; they smashed unions; they were not internationalists but nationalists. All of these are things that are contrary to socialism.
As for Mussolini, you're missing a vital point; he defected and turned on the communists. To quote him early on and then--
@borbo23 The Ford Motor Company supported the Stalinists long before the war ever started. It's why Soviet infantry divisions were motorized while most German infantry divisions were foot mobile. As for the PRC and the Indochinese Marxists, I suppose now I'm to assume they're fascists too.
Which of course they are. Which is exactly my point.
@DrCruel Your logic is so amusing. "They're fascist because they're communists so that means they're fascists".
The PRC was at one time communist, and is not any longer. It's become quite absorbed into the capitalist fold.
Ford building a factory in Russia (during the Great Depression, I might add, when Russia was doing well) does not compare to the total support major industry gave to fascism. Massive loans and freebies, total support. Because fascism comes from capitalism.
@borbo23 Pardon. Your logic is that socialists become fascists when they get in bed with big business. The Bolsheviks, Maoists and Vietnamese communists all got in bed with big business. Therefore these regimes are fascist too. QED.
The dilemma for Marxist governments is that the skill set needed for being a successful thug does not translate well into the business world. Therefore, once they kill off their domestic capitalists, they are sooner or later forced to import new ones from abroad.
@DrCruel Stalin wanted western capital because the civil war had drained the (already rather poor) country's resources. It was hardly, however, state capitalism.
Once again, you do not even understand the economics behind fascism and communism and so nothing you says makes sense, let alone presents a compelling argument. Nothing you say is backed up, except by "they were bad so they're the same".
@borbo23 Stalin wanted Western expertise because the Russians didn't have many qualified mechanical engineers, and had murdered many of the ones they did have on ideological grounds. That's why the Bolsheviks enticed many unemployed American engineers to the Soviet Union, under a business deal with the Ford Motor Company.
Of course, they were xenophobic racists too. That's why they subsequently sent most of these American engineers to labor camps, where almost all of them died.
@DrCruel No, socialists do not "become" fascists, the fact that some were at one time socialists and then later became fascists just has to do with them, personally.
Fascism is intricately tied in with big business; most of their actions are done at the behest of capital and seek to aid it (Hitler and Nazism went farther than big business wanted). Stalin just wanted some expertise because - you are right - he had eliminated many skilled engineers, and there weren't many to begin with.
@DrCruel Congratulations, you're almost making sense in some of your points. However, your main thesis is still flawed because you can't differentiate superficial characteristics from deeper meaning.
For example, it's incorrect to say the Soviets were racist; their actions were guided by an extremist view of who were class enemies. These are actually extremely important points. Zizek makes a very good discussion of this in his article "The Two Totalitarianisms". I suggest you read it.
@borbo23 I said the Bolsheviks were anti-Semitic as well as racist. They even have their own genocide to their name - the Holodomor, where millions of Ukrainians were starved and slaughtered. That the the Russian Left fascists justified their genocides on the basis of class, while German fascist socialists were more honest about their motives, was immaterial. Remember also that the Nazis likewise used economic class justifications, at least in part, for their own ethnic exterminations.
@DrCruel The justification of the Nazis was the "Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy", and they purged as many communists as they could along with Jews, Poles, and Gypsies.
Individual Bolsheviks may have been racist, but as a policy they were not, and did not even recognize race. The deaths in the Ukraine were due to a mix of bad policy and scorched earth by the Ukrainians - there's no evidence at all to suggest it was an intentional disaster (disaster though it was).
@borbo23 The Nazis proposed that the international banking system and Bolshevism were both products of Jews. In the former case they were in agreement with Karl Marx (who considered Jews "hucksters"), and were rather more partial to Marxism than the Bolsheviks liked to let on.
Inter-Leftist butchery is nothing new, of course. The Bolsheviks were pretty nasty to both the Social Revolutionaries and anarchists. This didn't make them any less of a socialist or Leftist faction.
@DrCruel I guess you think if you repeat something enough it makes it true? That you don't understand the meaning of "fascist" only serves to embarrass you.
You really have nothing original, compelling, or intelligent to say. You think somehow pointing out bad things the Bolsheviks did makes your arguments stronger or weakens mine. I've always frankly confronted that they did bad things.
The real issue here is that you don't actually understand what fascism is, or how it comes about.
@borbo23 If I believed repeating something made it true, I'd be a socialist.
I'm going by your definition of "fascist"; that is, a totalitarian regime with ties to large corporations. All the major Marxist regimes that ever existed thus qualify as "fascist". I can't help it if you're too ignorant of world affairs and history to know the ramifications of such a definition.
Really, the fundamental problem is that Marxist theories regarding a "capitalist apocalypse" are so very wrong.
@DrCruel Eh, no, that is not my definition, it is a defining characteristic that makes them quite different from the Bolsheviks however. Fascism derives its power base from such corporations; they are supported by them. Strongmen put into power by the bourgeois to counter mass worker movements. Socialist movements (even if they go astray) are started by workers and are made up of workers. Fascists draw their support from the middle and unemployed classes. Their ideology revolves--
@DrCruel cont'd-- around them being superior to everyone else, so they deserve more. Socialist ideology revolves around workers being entitled to the means of production because they created everything society is built on. They're entirely incompatible because they're based around different classes; socialism lacks the racist character, and instead views the capitalist class as their enemies (who never fail to prove this to be true).
@DrCruel cont'd-- You really don't get that; you don't want to get that. You just want to keep saying the same thing. "LOOK, THE BOLSHEVIKS KILLED PEOPLE!" is not an argument that they were fascists. It's such a ridiculous notion, like arguing that trees are squids, that it's actually hard to grasp.
It's funny, too, that you should call out Marxist theories for being wrong when global capitalism is in a meltdown. Mainstream economists don't even understand why it is so bad.
@DrCruel Ultimately, you have nothing to contribute here. You just have a bone to pick and you think if you say it enough time and use enough strawman attacks it'll be true.
During the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks were serving the interests of the German government, who desperately needed the war on their Eastern Front to end. that is why the Germans sent teh Bolshevik leaders to Russia in a sealed train. Contrary to the video, the Bolsheviks had other Leftist allies (Makhno's anarchists and the Social Revolutionaries) but betrayed them over the course of the war. They overthrew a democratic Duma to gain power, thereafter ruling like despots.
"The arguments of the rationalists assume at times, at least in their outer form, a more concrete character. They do not deduce Stalinism from Bolshevism as a whole but from its political sins. the Bolsheviks – according to Gorter, Pannekoek, certain German “Spartacists” and others – replaced the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the party;
Stalin replaced the dictatorship of the party with the dictatorship of the bureaucracy, the Bolsheviks destroyed all parties except their own; Stalin strangled the Bolshevik party in the interests of a Bonapartist clique. The Bolsheviks compromised with the bourgeoisie; Stalin became its ally and support. The Bolsheviks recognised the necessity of participation in the old trade unions and in the bourgeois parliament;
Stalin made friends with the trade union bureaucracy and bourgeois democracy. One can make such comparisons at will. For all their apparent effectiveness they are entirely empty."-Trotsky
@Sismiques Stalin carried out the policies of Lenin and Trotsky. He invented nothing new, and his gulags and NKVD were no more than extentions of Trotsky's CHEKA and of the brutal policies put first in place by these early Bolsheviks.
Stalin was the voice of Marxism from the death of Lenin up until his own death. Only years after his death, when his usefulness as a tool had ended, did they suddenly see fit to denounce him.
@Sismiques It is like saying that Anti-Semitism is "distilled" unfairly from Nazi ideology. Mind that state-sponsored racism and ethinic hatred is no stranger to the Marxist ranks.
How many millions of people must be deliberately murdered before one can call the purveyors of an ideology "murderers"? How many millions must be enslaved and tortured? How many genocides are they allowed?
"It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations.
The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races. Those who do not work are kept in power by the power and strength of capital. Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers.
Shame on accursed tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.
Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital."-Lenin
The same question must be asked of capitalism, which has put most of the world in misery, and caused far more deaths than communism ever has. The murders of fascism fall at its feat, as well as the imperial massacres of the 19th century. Truly nothing can touch the murder machine that is capitalism.
@DrCruel The Mensheviks and social democrats betrayed those who had put them into power by not keeping the promise to pull out of the war. It was the Bolsheviks who stuck to that promise, and why they were put into power - PUT into power. Events actually occurred faster than the Bolshevik leaders could respond, and they found themselves in control by mass democratic will.
@DrCruel The funny thing about you is that you look at the most superficial things and make sweeping, ignorant statements based on them. The real question you never ask is "why". Why did Stalin make a deal with Hitler? Not because they liked or agreed with each other. Stalin (for all his flaws, he was a mass-murdering horrible person) saw war was coming and delayed for strategic reasons to have more time to prepare. The same as the western powers (whom you curiously let off the hook)
@DrCruel It's very typical, hypocritical stuff, and pretty normal for one of your ilk (though not less funny for it). I swear they pump you guys out of a mold.
Even out of failure things can be learned. The Bolsheviks made a lot of mistakes, but also did a lot right. And we can learn from that and do things better next time. The fact that they ultimately failed no more means their ideas were wrong than the failure of the French revolution meant Republicanism was wrong.
You are just another leftist who will never admit to the crimes of communism. Like I asked you have you ever lived in a communist state...here's the fact you leftist dont understand your idea of a perfect society inherently requires the Police State...and thats a fact
. but you are right about on thing we are losing are freedoms here in the USA since the Marxist Obama assumed power. ...Exterminate the Left
@Canisius19 I guess you're not very literate, since my very first line of response was acknowledging bad things happened. Makes sense; the US is ranked 45th in the world in terms of literacy, while Georgia (former part of the USSR) is 1st and Cuba is 2nd.
I am certainly no fan of Obama since he's a liberal, but the teahadists are the biggest threat in the US right now.
Clearly, though, you are not a rational human being, so reason is hardly the way to discuss things with you.
oct 1917 was a coup and not a revolution, coup d' etat by lenin and trotzki, the true revolutionary goverment of krensky has been over thrown by the NAVAL kronstadt soldiers and lenin why do you call it revolution? no usual people were involverd in it
@Fravahar The Kerensky government was a complete failure, and was reneging on most of the demands of the populace by remaining in the war. The Bolsheviks had kept to their principles in still trying to remove themselves from the war, hence they were pushed into taking power.
It was a revolution, they were completely changing the old social order.
@Fravahar So I guess the fact that they took Russia out of WW1, redistributed the land to the peasants, destroyed the old unjust social order, and created a new one that, though flawed, was light-years ahead of the old one, and brought Russia from using wooden ploughs to nuclear power in twenty years was just a dream.
Did bad stuff happen? Yes. Has there ever been a government or country where bad stuff didn't happen? No. Is Russia better off now, under capitalism? No. It's far, far worse.
@borbo23 come on, guy, i am not deneding ROMANOV s but you can not deny over 20 milion or more victims of lenin and stalöin com eon guy lol cpmpare east germany with west germany you can not really be convinced that communism was better in east germayn then the syastem of west germany,
@borbo23 Drugs are rampant, crime has exploded, there's no healthcare, suicides have skyrocketed, the average life expectancy has gone way down . . . If there was ever a clearer indication that communism was better for a people than capitalism, it is there. And it is staring you in the face.
@Fravahar A lot of books are filled with propaganda, and Austria is part of NATO and also considered a "western" country. AKA, my comments are still entirely relevant.
@Fravahar Ah, you're right. However, it was intensely closely involved with NATO and the western countries in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership, and has the same kind of anti-communist propaganda.
Either way, it still holds that the 20 million number you randomly came up with is BS. Those sorts of ridiculous inventions were the work of Cold War propagandists who blamed everything on communism, including incurable diseases.
@borbo23 YOu are another pathetic revolutionary commie type. Let me ask you have you ever had the "joy" of living in communist state.?? Well my family did (Czechoslovakia) and my father was lucky to get out with his life. His brother was murdered by the sercret police in the middle of the night, taken from his bed and arrested in the name of the people. My grandmother waited on lines for hours just to get bread, the press was controlled, religion controlled, everything was controlled
@Canisius19 Bad things did happen in communist states, they were far from perfect. However, countries like the Czech Republic are far worse off under capitalism unless you happen to be one of the lucky few who are rich. The Czech Republic was once known for being modern and industrial; now it's known for sex tourism. Russia and other former communist states have also declined enormously since their change to capitalism.
@Canisius19 Also, I should point out that this video is nearly showing the truth of how the Russian Revolution began as a popular movement. Attempts to try to claim it was rotten from the beginning are simply revisionist attempts to discredit not just what was accomplished under the Bolsheviks but the very idea of revolution and ideology.
@Canisius19 not a true communist state I'm not a communist nor do I support communism simply because the probability of a true communist state is very low. the USSR into a fascist state faster than Stalin could break out of prison (Stalin was notoriously good at breaking out of prison)
@kingme144 No. You have zero understanding of politics if you think the USSR was a fascist state. Authoritarian? Absolutely. You have no understanding of fascism or how it comes to be - it is a form of government that springs from capitalism.
But looking at details and declaring the same thing is simply idiotic. I'm actually embarrassed at how ignorant a statement that is. It's like saying that bats must be birds because they fly.
@borbo23 I have had this argument a number of times before. Communism has no class system (that's what makes it communism) but the USSR did develop definite class distinctions under Stalin therefore it was imperialist and because it was authoritarian as well it was fascism. basically Class system= imperialism and imperialism+ authoritarianism= fascism. and I can assure you that it is not an ignorant statement because it based on my research into the histories of both communism and fascism
@kingme144 No, it's an idiotic statement. Fascism is a development of capitalism; the ruling class put a strong man in power in reaction to a working class movement to crush them. This is how all fascist movements have developed.
Your definition of authoritarian=fascism is so vague as to be completely useless, and class system=imperialism is equally useless. So far in history, every society has had classes, are they all imperialist?
@kingme144 As an example, many monarchies have been both authoritarian and imperialist. By your definition they are suddenly fascist - yet that is a completely inadequate definition.
Political systems are not defined by superficial characteristics, but by taking into account their development and ideology.
Now, you can make a case the Soviet Union was not communist, (and it was of course authoritarian, especially under Stalin) but to say it is fascist only betrays a ridiculous ignorance.
@borbo23 I think that you will find especially if you've read platonic philosophy that it is better to form a judgement based on actions than on ideology this is because actions are always truth (Unless you live in an Orwellian distopia) most monarchies were fascist especially European ones which were based on the ruling system of Rome i.e classical fascism. I agree that my argument was quite vague, because their was a ruling class with a dictator both of whom used the USSR as a personal fiefdom
@borbo23 Maybe I don't under stand what fascism is properly but it was my understanding that it a natural reaction for it to rise in face of leftist movements even after they are established. for example after the Anarchist revolution in Spain had established Fascist forces invaded and took over. Because of this I assumed that fascism was a constant threat to any leftest revolution and used Stalinist was an example of fascism rising from inside a communist movement.
@kingme144 Fascism is heavily tied into economics just as much as politics. Fascism derives economically from capitalism, and it's really not accurate to describe Stalinism as a form of fascism. It certainly was authoritarian, but it was not capitalist or even mercantile.
I mean the actual driving ideology, not simply the one espoused for propaganda. The US is a good example - you cannot understand American history without understanding it is driven by capitalistic/imperialistic greed.
@borbo23 I guess your right it just seems wrong some how to class it as communism simply because their was an oppressive class system. I went naturally for Fascism because its to the right of communism. Yes it is important to look critically at propaganda and read the true ideology of a nation or group from its actions. If you believed US propaganda you'd believe it was a anarcho-capitalist society
@kingme144 Fascism is a Leftist movement. As for why I think the Bolshjeviks were Marxists, it has more to do with "propaganda" from teh ISO and like-minded Marxist groups claiming as much for decades.
How much longer must we endure Marxist lies? So many of those lies were revealed for what they were two decades ago, when the Russian Left fascist state collapsed. Why should we indulge Leftist attempts to weedle out of their numerous crimes?
@DrCruel A typically ignorant capitalist response. You do not even understand the history or definition of fascism. It is inherently capitalist government, the result of capitalism run rampant. This is the only possible explanation for such facts as the support major corporatons had for fascist states yet were diametrically opposed to communism.
If you want to discuss crimes, then you're going to lose. The mistakes and crimes of communist states (which I have never denied) --
@borbo23 Yeah. That must be it. I must have a problem with Marxist genocides because of my attachment to the practice of capital stock trading.
I'm quite familiar with world history, with Mussolini's works on fascism, and I have read the works of Goebbels in regards Nazism. I've read the works of Marx and Trotsky. I do not comment frivilously.
Communist states did not male "mistakes" when they killed people. Liquidating class enemies was their intention from the start.
@DrCruel cont'd -- have nothing on the constant genocide of capitalism, or the fact that it currently causes the majority of the planet to live in constant misery to fuel its over-consumption.
There is no denying that the Bolsheviks represented the democratic and popular will of the Russian people, and while they did many things wrong, there is also a lot they did right (like defeating fascism). the current ahistorical trend of trying to mistake them for fascism only shows --
@borbo23 I do not accept the worldview of Marxists because it is absurd and self-serving. As for "defeating" fascism, they have accomplished two of the three phases necessary for this to happen. The first was defeating Nazi Germany, a rival socialist state (after allying with it). The second was in engineering the self-destruction of the USSR. We are still waiting on the collapse of the PRC.
And yes, socialist states frequently deal with capitalists. That's because Marxists are hypocrites.
@DrCruel cont'd -- the intellectual bankruptcy of capitalism. They are so threatened by left-wing movements (made even more apparent by this year of revolutions) that they will do anything, and reduce their people to such abject ignorance (of which you are an example) that they cannot even have grasp basic concepts of ideology and economics.
@borbo23 People involved in trade and commerce are threatened by "Left-wing movements" for the same reasons that merchants are threatened by pirates. Leftists thrive on stealing the wealth and labor of others. This is why they claim to seek the overthrow of the richest targets and, once in power, enslave and steal from the very "proletariat" they claim to be fighting in the name of.
It is very easy to understand the basic concepts behind Marxism. It's a Ponzi scheme, the Amway of ideologies.
@DrCruel It always makes me laugh when capitalists say communism is a ponzi scheme. that's all capitalism is, it's not even hidden. It's a pyramid with a tiny number at the top feeding off of everyone else and doing absolutely nothing. You have no credibility after such a laughable statement.
@borbo23 You must be the most intelligent person who I have talked about this with. Although the others were communists and probably licked the idea of removing the horrors of the Bolshevik rule from their movement.
@kingme144 Thank you. I apologize for the "idiotic" remark from before and any other rudenesses. I erred and thought you were the person who said "the left should be exterminated" (canisius19). I just didn't look at the name. You didn't do anything to deserve rudeness.
The Bolsheviks made a lot of mistakes, it was the first revolution of its kind to succeed. It doesn't excuse them, but the horrors that occurred do not mean communism is a failure - we just need to learn from those mistakes.
@borbo23 Its fine it you tube rudeness is to be expected. I think that communism needs pretty specific conditions to succeed so a while bac I converted k to anarcho-communism(after converting from communism to anarchy, i find pure anarchy lacks a scientific approach) . but in places like Germany (Marx designed communism with his homeland in mind) I have no doubt that it could thrive.
@borbo23 The Bolsheviks made no mistakes. They were methodical planners, and did exactly what they had wanted to do. The result - a dictatorship that enforced misery so that an ideological elite might prosper, is exactly what the Bolsheviks had in mind all along. The "capitalist" government they overthrew was democratic - anathema to the Bolsheviks, who were interested in establishing a "dictatorship of the proletariat", with the Bolsheviks as dictators.
The Bolsheviks would surely not have countenanced sitting out of power for 4 years while another coalition "had their turn", for they are utterly convinced of their rightness that any alternative must be wrong.
The Mensheviks are part of the Fabian movement, and you see their vile underhanded creeping "Communism" and Authoritarianism in such conceits as "Social Democracy" and throughout an infested EU.
At least the Communists are open and honest about their intent. I do admire them for that,
Great scene, though the commentary paints a rosy picture of the Bolsheviks; they did some terrible things, and often went out of their way to alienate other leftist parties (the Menshevik-Internationalists and Left SRs come to mind). I'm no anti-communist, but I suggest you read some books by Alexander Rabinowitch, and other revisionist historians who suggest that the Civil War wasn't so black and white as you make it (or inversely how Western scholars usually make it).
No one says the Bolsheviks didn't do bad things, but they really did help Russia (wood ploughs to nuclear power in thirty years) and were far better than any of the other groups in Russia - they also had a popular mandate, being the only party who kept their promise of trying to end the war.
@borbo23 the vocie over is strictly from the perspective of a Bolshevik, when you see the later scenes with the Alec Guiness character you can see clearly the change, he is stuck in the system and admires the 'young doctor' for speaking openly, freely but dangerously and does what he can to help him, at considerable personal risk, the affection is genuine as he seeks out Zhivago's daughter (out of concern) but sees she is doing ok. A tremendous film!!
@borbo23 the vocie over is strictly from the perspective of a Bolshevik, when you see the later scenes with the Alec Guiness character you can see clearly the change, he is stuck in the system and admires the 'young doctor' for speaking openly, freely but dangerously and does what he can to help him, at considerable personal risk, the affection is genuine as he seeks out Zhivago's daughter (out of concern) but sees she is doing ok. A tremendous film!!
@borbo23 but you are right, the Bolsheviks hijacked the Revolution, abolished the real Soviets and established a one party state that led to Stalin and all that that involved, ultimately it failed to give working people what they deserved, a free, equal, meritocratic Republic.
@IneptTroopr I helped write the commentary. While I haven't read Rabinowitch, we've both read several other books by revisionist historians including Sheila Fitzpatrick. The video's commentary is exactly a minute long- not enough time to present a scholarly explanation but enough time to show that the Bolsheviks did indeed deliver on their core promises.
@IneptTroopr And I suggest you to see the entire movie. Then you'll see if it's such a rosy picture of the Bolsheviks. Many points of view are shown in this movie. That one in the excerpt is a bolshevik's, then no wonder if it's rosy.
@jean3oarsman Oh, I wasn't challenging the movie, I actually think it does a fair job of being pretty open-minded to all sides, though maybe overall leaning towards anti-Bolshevik. I was actually referring to the little commentary by the video poster at the end.
Comment removed
nfletch57 6 days ago
ussr forever
huck123ist 1 week ago
im hate usa
huck123ist 1 week ago
totallyz FAKE FAKE FAKE. there was no color back then. learn to history peoples!
mattaki 3 weeks ago 2
@mattaki Damn, you caught on!
borbo23 3 weeks ago
But: if socialism requires violence it betrays its own humanism. It is ever under threat for the re-expropriation by the worst of the returned capitalists and socialism's own *nomenklatura* and they will justify this theft by reference to socialism's own struggles to maintain itself through violence. The first form of socialism to succeed will have such widespread approval as to be completely peaceful.
spinoza1111 1 month ago
@spinoza1111 Reality is not cut and dried like that. Socialism is not about appealing to everyone, it's about the working class. Members of the other classes can join us after the fact, but not in their current form. It only cares about the working class because they're the only class who produce anything and who can end the violence of class systems. That's all that matters.
borbo23 1 month ago
@borbo23 'Work" and "producing" are not the names of properties that people possess. They name the relationship of a human activity to the means of production, and this understanding allows us to see that anyone can be considered a worker when in this relationship. It accounts for the unpaid labour of women and that of the white collar. Traditional Marxism fetishizes a relationship to the tools of production that's been long outdated by automation.
spinoza1111 1 month ago
@spinoza1111 Indeed, it does need to adjust over time, but the basic premise remains the same. Marxists have always embraced means of increasing production. Automation is not new, it's just gotten technically more sophisticated than cotton gins.
The working class are the only ones who actually perform labour and services. Marxists simply believe that the people who perform the labor inherently own the means of production. After all, they built it.
borbo23 1 month ago
Even partially socialistic policies including capitalism at war creates real wealth which is irresistible to the capitalists once they retake power. The computer was developed as part of war capitalism in the USA as the large mainframe. Miniaturization in 1973 was the ONLY innovation: the early "microcomputers" were simply small and underpowered mainframes.
spinoza1111 1 month ago
The Bolsheviks did set out to create a one-party state. Lenin believed that the Party was the Proletariat, and that since the Proletariat was scientifically the most advanced class, it could not admit any other parties. This made some sense since otherwise, the parliamentary socialist party will build a partial socialism only to have it completely dismantled by a successor capitalist party, whether that party takes control through an election (Thatcher 1980) or a coup (Pinochet 1973).
spinoza1111 1 month ago
Just curious, what movie was this from?
mukmakumkum 1 month ago
@mukmakumkum The original version of Doctor Zhivago.
borbo23 1 month ago
so what exactly? ‘Was the Russian Revolution rather a Bolshevik coup d’état or a ‘national revolution’? confused?
lucybaby6 2 months ago
@lucybaby6 There was initially a revolution by many elements of the center and left, including liberals, anarchists, and communists. This was a hugely popular movement but quickly failed beacuse no one except the Bolsheviks actually kept their promises (namely withdrawing from the first world war and land redistribution).
The Bolsheviks stuck to what they said and because of that another popular revolt overthrow the coalition government and installed the Bolsheviks.
borbo23 2 months ago
@lucybaby6 From the beginning, as portrayed here, the Bolsheviks had the support of the revolutionists in the military, which gave them a large amount of clout.
It's worth noting that the second revolution was not something the Bolsheviks created - they were caught off-guard by the suddenness and had to hurry to react in time.
borbo23 2 months ago
Repeatedly pressing 8 shows an officer crowdsurfing...just saying.
Sleepwalkourlives 2 months ago
The Bolsheviks' State Capitalist coup dealt working class socialism / communism such a blow it still has not recovered from it. Capitalism is desperate / opportunistic and uses any means to continue its profitable rule. When the former KGB boss becomes Russia's president, and along with the Chinese "Communists" shamelessly make a killing in profits sharing their mass exploits with "former rivals" (now part of the "world government") that should tell the most sheepish of sheeple something.
Evolving001 2 months ago
@Evolving001 While the Bolsheviks were far from perfect, they were hardly capitalists in disguise. There was a great amount of socialism in the USSR and it was an effective state until Reagan sped up the cold war to the point they went bankrupt trying not to be overwhelmed by western nukes.
China is no longer a socialist state and is definitely capitalist now.
However, there was never a Bolshevik coup after the red revolution . . . they were simply put in power.
borbo23 2 months ago
For those naive enough to believe the Soviet propaganda and its fossil remnants, be warned that Socialism / Communism was co-opted within few months after the working class Soviets (workers' councils) toppled the old regime. But the Bolsheviks who were led by small bourgeoisie / capitalists in the form of intellectuals and bureaucrats made a coup against the workers by seizing the power from the working class.
Evolving001 2 months ago
No. It is ridiculous to propose that Marxist intellectuals intended nothing of what they did from 1917 on. It is absurd to claim the fascist movements of the 1920s and 1930s, in the face of their strong socialist roots and socialist themes, were somehow versions of "extreme" capitalism. It is simply stupid to allow Marxists to evade their crimes by playing semantic games with words used to describe them.
What the Bolsheviks did to Russia was obscene. Unlike the Nazis, they got away with it.
DrCruel 2 months ago
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
-Speech to Chamber of Deputies (9 December 1928), quoted in Propaganda and Dictatorship (2007) by Marx Fritz Morstein, p. 48
Mussolini claimed that his fascism was a "Third Way", divergent from both capitalism and Marxism. It was, however, undeniably statist.
Shall I post his early quotes praising socialism?
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel "National socialism" and genuine socialism are entirely separate things. It also should be mentioned that Mussolini was at one time a member of the communist party and then later changed sides.
You clearly are very ignorant about these things. Did you use cliff notes versions of the many books you claim to have read?
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 The German national socialists were actually more authentically socialist than the Russian Bolsheviks. As for Mussolini, he was more closely associated with the anarchists, but yes - he was the editor of a Marxist newspaper. Thus how the roots of fascism derive from Marxist theory.
I thought you were trying to disagree with me. That's what your insults about my intelligence seem to imply.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel Uh, no, German National Socialism was about as far from genuine socialism as you can get. You must be joking, right? I can't imagine someone could be this stupid. The Nazis were supported by major industry; they lowered wages; they smashed unions; they were not internationalists but nationalists. All of these are things that are contrary to socialism.
As for Mussolini, you're missing a vital point; he defected and turned on the communists. To quote him early on and then--
borbo23 2 months ago
@DrCruel cont'd --claim he was a communist because of that is misleading and dishonest.
You are unable to account for the fact that major industry supported fascism. You don't even try. That in itself is very telling.
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 The Ford Motor Company supported the Stalinists long before the war ever started. It's why Soviet infantry divisions were motorized while most German infantry divisions were foot mobile. As for the PRC and the Indochinese Marxists, I suppose now I'm to assume they're fascists too.
Which of course they are. Which is exactly my point.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel Your logic is so amusing. "They're fascist because they're communists so that means they're fascists".
The PRC was at one time communist, and is not any longer. It's become quite absorbed into the capitalist fold.
Ford building a factory in Russia (during the Great Depression, I might add, when Russia was doing well) does not compare to the total support major industry gave to fascism. Massive loans and freebies, total support. Because fascism comes from capitalism.
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 Pardon. Your logic is that socialists become fascists when they get in bed with big business. The Bolsheviks, Maoists and Vietnamese communists all got in bed with big business. Therefore these regimes are fascist too. QED.
The dilemma for Marxist governments is that the skill set needed for being a successful thug does not translate well into the business world. Therefore, once they kill off their domestic capitalists, they are sooner or later forced to import new ones from abroad.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel Stalin wanted western capital because the civil war had drained the (already rather poor) country's resources. It was hardly, however, state capitalism.
Once again, you do not even understand the economics behind fascism and communism and so nothing you says makes sense, let alone presents a compelling argument. Nothing you say is backed up, except by "they were bad so they're the same".
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 Stalin wanted Western expertise because the Russians didn't have many qualified mechanical engineers, and had murdered many of the ones they did have on ideological grounds. That's why the Bolsheviks enticed many unemployed American engineers to the Soviet Union, under a business deal with the Ford Motor Company.
Of course, they were xenophobic racists too. That's why they subsequently sent most of these American engineers to labor camps, where almost all of them died.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel No, socialists do not "become" fascists, the fact that some were at one time socialists and then later became fascists just has to do with them, personally.
Fascism is intricately tied in with big business; most of their actions are done at the behest of capital and seek to aid it (Hitler and Nazism went farther than big business wanted). Stalin just wanted some expertise because - you are right - he had eliminated many skilled engineers, and there weren't many to begin with.
borbo23 2 months ago
@DrCruel Congratulations, you're almost making sense in some of your points. However, your main thesis is still flawed because you can't differentiate superficial characteristics from deeper meaning.
For example, it's incorrect to say the Soviets were racist; their actions were guided by an extremist view of who were class enemies. These are actually extremely important points. Zizek makes a very good discussion of this in his article "The Two Totalitarianisms". I suggest you read it.
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 I said the Bolsheviks were anti-Semitic as well as racist. They even have their own genocide to their name - the Holodomor, where millions of Ukrainians were starved and slaughtered. That the the Russian Left fascists justified their genocides on the basis of class, while German fascist socialists were more honest about their motives, was immaterial. Remember also that the Nazis likewise used economic class justifications, at least in part, for their own ethnic exterminations.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel The justification of the Nazis was the "Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy", and they purged as many communists as they could along with Jews, Poles, and Gypsies.
Individual Bolsheviks may have been racist, but as a policy they were not, and did not even recognize race. The deaths in the Ukraine were due to a mix of bad policy and scorched earth by the Ukrainians - there's no evidence at all to suggest it was an intentional disaster (disaster though it was).
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 The Nazis proposed that the international banking system and Bolshevism were both products of Jews. In the former case they were in agreement with Karl Marx (who considered Jews "hucksters"), and were rather more partial to Marxism than the Bolsheviks liked to let on.
Inter-Leftist butchery is nothing new, of course. The Bolsheviks were pretty nasty to both the Social Revolutionaries and anarchists. This didn't make them any less of a socialist or Leftist faction.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel I guess you think if you repeat something enough it makes it true? That you don't understand the meaning of "fascist" only serves to embarrass you.
You really have nothing original, compelling, or intelligent to say. You think somehow pointing out bad things the Bolsheviks did makes your arguments stronger or weakens mine. I've always frankly confronted that they did bad things.
The real issue here is that you don't actually understand what fascism is, or how it comes about.
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 If I believed repeating something made it true, I'd be a socialist.
I'm going by your definition of "fascist"; that is, a totalitarian regime with ties to large corporations. All the major Marxist regimes that ever existed thus qualify as "fascist". I can't help it if you're too ignorant of world affairs and history to know the ramifications of such a definition.
Really, the fundamental problem is that Marxist theories regarding a "capitalist apocalypse" are so very wrong.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel Eh, no, that is not my definition, it is a defining characteristic that makes them quite different from the Bolsheviks however. Fascism derives its power base from such corporations; they are supported by them. Strongmen put into power by the bourgeois to counter mass worker movements. Socialist movements (even if they go astray) are started by workers and are made up of workers. Fascists draw their support from the middle and unemployed classes. Their ideology revolves--
borbo23 2 months ago
@DrCruel cont'd-- around them being superior to everyone else, so they deserve more. Socialist ideology revolves around workers being entitled to the means of production because they created everything society is built on. They're entirely incompatible because they're based around different classes; socialism lacks the racist character, and instead views the capitalist class as their enemies (who never fail to prove this to be true).
borbo23 2 months ago
@DrCruel cont'd-- You really don't get that; you don't want to get that. You just want to keep saying the same thing. "LOOK, THE BOLSHEVIKS KILLED PEOPLE!" is not an argument that they were fascists. It's such a ridiculous notion, like arguing that trees are squids, that it's actually hard to grasp.
It's funny, too, that you should call out Marxist theories for being wrong when global capitalism is in a meltdown. Mainstream economists don't even understand why it is so bad.
borbo23 2 months ago
@DrCruel Ultimately, you have nothing to contribute here. You just have a bone to pick and you think if you say it enough time and use enough strawman attacks it'll be true.
borbo23 2 months ago
During the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks were serving the interests of the German government, who desperately needed the war on their Eastern Front to end. that is why the Germans sent teh Bolshevik leaders to Russia in a sealed train. Contrary to the video, the Bolsheviks had other Leftist allies (Makhno's anarchists and the Social Revolutionaries) but betrayed them over the course of the war. They overthrew a democratic Duma to gain power, thereafter ruling like despots.
DrCruel 2 months ago
"The arguments of the rationalists assume at times, at least in their outer form, a more concrete character. They do not deduce Stalinism from Bolshevism as a whole but from its political sins. the Bolsheviks – according to Gorter, Pannekoek, certain German “Spartacists” and others – replaced the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the party;
Sismiques 2 months ago
Stalin replaced the dictatorship of the party with the dictatorship of the bureaucracy, the Bolsheviks destroyed all parties except their own; Stalin strangled the Bolshevik party in the interests of a Bonapartist clique. The Bolsheviks compromised with the bourgeoisie; Stalin became its ally and support. The Bolsheviks recognised the necessity of participation in the old trade unions and in the bourgeois parliament;
Sismiques 2 months ago
Stalin made friends with the trade union bureaucracy and bourgeois democracy. One can make such comparisons at will. For all their apparent effectiveness they are entirely empty."-Trotsky
Sismiques 2 months ago
@Sismiques Stalin carried out the policies of Lenin and Trotsky. He invented nothing new, and his gulags and NKVD were no more than extentions of Trotsky's CHEKA and of the brutal policies put first in place by these early Bolsheviks.
Stalin was the voice of Marxism from the death of Lenin up until his own death. Only years after his death, when his usefulness as a tool had ended, did they suddenly see fit to denounce him.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel
Stalin was in opposition to Trotsky, guess the NKVD's ice pick to Trotsky's head isn't obvious enough for you.
Sismiques 2 months ago
@Sismiques It is like saying that Anti-Semitism is "distilled" unfairly from Nazi ideology. Mind that state-sponsored racism and ethinic hatred is no stranger to the Marxist ranks.
How many millions of people must be deliberately murdered before one can call the purveyors of an ideology "murderers"? How many millions must be enslaved and tortured? How many genocides are they allowed?
DrCruel 2 months ago
"It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there are among the Russians, and among people of all nations.
Sismiques 2 months ago
The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races. Those who do not work are kept in power by the power and strength of capital. Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers.
Sismiques 2 months ago
Shame on accursed tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.
Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital."-Lenin
Sismiques 2 months ago
@DrCruel "How many genocides are they allowed"
The same question must be asked of capitalism, which has put most of the world in misery, and caused far more deaths than communism ever has. The murders of fascism fall at its feat, as well as the imperial massacres of the 19th century. Truly nothing can touch the murder machine that is capitalism.
borbo23 2 months ago
@DrCruel The Mensheviks and social democrats betrayed those who had put them into power by not keeping the promise to pull out of the war. It was the Bolsheviks who stuck to that promise, and why they were put into power - PUT into power. Events actually occurred faster than the Bolshevik leaders could respond, and they found themselves in control by mass democratic will.
borbo23 2 months ago
@DrCruel The funny thing about you is that you look at the most superficial things and make sweeping, ignorant statements based on them. The real question you never ask is "why". Why did Stalin make a deal with Hitler? Not because they liked or agreed with each other. Stalin (for all his flaws, he was a mass-murdering horrible person) saw war was coming and delayed for strategic reasons to have more time to prepare. The same as the western powers (whom you curiously let off the hook)
borbo23 2 months ago
@DrCruel It's very typical, hypocritical stuff, and pretty normal for one of your ilk (though not less funny for it). I swear they pump you guys out of a mold.
Even out of failure things can be learned. The Bolsheviks made a lot of mistakes, but also did a lot right. And we can learn from that and do things better next time. The fact that they ultimately failed no more means their ideas were wrong than the failure of the French revolution meant Republicanism was wrong.
borbo23 2 months ago
I have always loved how Dr. Zhivago got the history right at least. The romantic story is amazing too as well.
Wolfen443 3 months ago 2
You are just another leftist who will never admit to the crimes of communism. Like I asked you have you ever lived in a communist state...here's the fact you leftist dont understand your idea of a perfect society inherently requires the Police State...and thats a fact
. but you are right about on thing we are losing are freedoms here in the USA since the Marxist Obama assumed power. ...Exterminate the Left
Canisius19 3 months ago
@Canisius19 I guess you're not very literate, since my very first line of response was acknowledging bad things happened. Makes sense; the US is ranked 45th in the world in terms of literacy, while Georgia (former part of the USSR) is 1st and Cuba is 2nd.
I am certainly no fan of Obama since he's a liberal, but the teahadists are the biggest threat in the US right now.
Clearly, though, you are not a rational human being, so reason is hardly the way to discuss things with you.
borbo23 3 months ago
oct 1917 was a coup and not a revolution, coup d' etat by lenin and trotzki, the true revolutionary goverment of krensky has been over thrown by the NAVAL kronstadt soldiers and lenin why do you call it revolution? no usual people were involverd in it
Fravahar 4 months ago
@Fravahar The Kerensky government was a complete failure, and was reneging on most of the demands of the populace by remaining in the war. The Bolsheviks had kept to their principles in still trying to remove themselves from the war, hence they were pushed into taking power.
It was a revolution, they were completely changing the old social order.
borbo23 4 months ago
@borbo23 NO SIR, bolsheviks brought no freedom for russia, lenin just used the money og germany to take power in russia,
LENIN wanted thepower in any cost,
massacres commited by lenin are a sign of that
Fravahar 4 months ago
@Fravahar So I guess the fact that they took Russia out of WW1, redistributed the land to the peasants, destroyed the old unjust social order, and created a new one that, though flawed, was light-years ahead of the old one, and brought Russia from using wooden ploughs to nuclear power in twenty years was just a dream.
Did bad stuff happen? Yes. Has there ever been a government or country where bad stuff didn't happen? No. Is Russia better off now, under capitalism? No. It's far, far worse.
borbo23 4 months ago
@borbo23 come on, guy, i am not deneding ROMANOV s but you can not deny over 20 milion or more victims of lenin and stalöin com eon guy lol cpmpare east germany with west germany you can not really be convinced that communism was better in east germayn then the syastem of west germany,
plz dont be a fundamentalist thx
Fravahar 4 months ago
@Fravahar Stop listening to counter-revolutionary propaganda. Twenty million is a ridiculous claim, straight from American propaganda.
And most east Germans still think Socialism is a good idea, they just think it was poorly managed.
A better example would be communist Russia and post-communist Russia. It's a night and day difference, sadly for the worse. --
borbo23 4 months ago
@borbo23 Drugs are rampant, crime has exploded, there's no healthcare, suicides have skyrocketed, the average life expectancy has gone way down . . . If there was ever a clearer indication that communism was better for a people than capitalism, it is there. And it is staring you in the face.
borbo23 4 months ago
@borbo23 i read books and for your information i live in austria, and speak german, i guess you are a victim of propagnada not me
Fravahar 4 months ago
@Fravahar A lot of books are filled with propaganda, and Austria is part of NATO and also considered a "western" country. AKA, my comments are still entirely relevant.
borbo23 4 months ago
@borbo23 you are not well informed austria was never in nato
Fravahar 4 months ago
@Fravahar Ah, you're right. However, it was intensely closely involved with NATO and the western countries in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership, and has the same kind of anti-communist propaganda.
Either way, it still holds that the 20 million number you randomly came up with is BS. Those sorts of ridiculous inventions were the work of Cold War propagandists who blamed everything on communism, including incurable diseases.
borbo23 4 months ago
@borbo23 YOu are another pathetic revolutionary commie type. Let me ask you have you ever had the "joy" of living in communist state.?? Well my family did (Czechoslovakia) and my father was lucky to get out with his life. His brother was murdered by the sercret police in the middle of the night, taken from his bed and arrested in the name of the people. My grandmother waited on lines for hours just to get bread, the press was controlled, religion controlled, everything was controlled
Canisius19 3 months ago
@Canisius19 Bad things did happen in communist states, they were far from perfect. However, countries like the Czech Republic are far worse off under capitalism unless you happen to be one of the lucky few who are rich. The Czech Republic was once known for being modern and industrial; now it's known for sex tourism. Russia and other former communist states have also declined enormously since their change to capitalism.
borbo23 3 months ago
@Canisius19 Also, I should point out that this video is nearly showing the truth of how the Russian Revolution began as a popular movement. Attempts to try to claim it was rotten from the beginning are simply revisionist attempts to discredit not just what was accomplished under the Bolsheviks but the very idea of revolution and ideology.
borbo23 3 months ago
@Canisius19 lol. sounds like the USA right now. oh wait, we're "FREE" people. LMAO
usmc18D 3 months ago
@Canisius19 not a true communist state I'm not a communist nor do I support communism simply because the probability of a true communist state is very low. the USSR into a fascist state faster than Stalin could break out of prison (Stalin was notoriously good at breaking out of prison)
kingme144 3 months ago
@kingme144 No. You have zero understanding of politics if you think the USSR was a fascist state. Authoritarian? Absolutely. You have no understanding of fascism or how it comes to be - it is a form of government that springs from capitalism.
But looking at details and declaring the same thing is simply idiotic. I'm actually embarrassed at how ignorant a statement that is. It's like saying that bats must be birds because they fly.
borbo23 3 months ago
@borbo23 I have had this argument a number of times before. Communism has no class system (that's what makes it communism) but the USSR did develop definite class distinctions under Stalin therefore it was imperialist and because it was authoritarian as well it was fascism. basically Class system= imperialism and imperialism+ authoritarianism= fascism. and I can assure you that it is not an ignorant statement because it based on my research into the histories of both communism and fascism
kingme144 3 months ago
@kingme144 No, it's an idiotic statement. Fascism is a development of capitalism; the ruling class put a strong man in power in reaction to a working class movement to crush them. This is how all fascist movements have developed.
Your definition of authoritarian=fascism is so vague as to be completely useless, and class system=imperialism is equally useless. So far in history, every society has had classes, are they all imperialist?
borbo23 3 months ago
@kingme144 As an example, many monarchies have been both authoritarian and imperialist. By your definition they are suddenly fascist - yet that is a completely inadequate definition.
Political systems are not defined by superficial characteristics, but by taking into account their development and ideology.
Now, you can make a case the Soviet Union was not communist, (and it was of course authoritarian, especially under Stalin) but to say it is fascist only betrays a ridiculous ignorance.
borbo23 3 months ago
@borbo23 I think that you will find especially if you've read platonic philosophy that it is better to form a judgement based on actions than on ideology this is because actions are always truth (Unless you live in an Orwellian distopia) most monarchies were fascist especially European ones which were based on the ruling system of Rome i.e classical fascism. I agree that my argument was quite vague, because their was a ruling class with a dictator both of whom used the USSR as a personal fiefdom
kingme144 3 months ago
@borbo23 Maybe I don't under stand what fascism is properly but it was my understanding that it a natural reaction for it to rise in face of leftist movements even after they are established. for example after the Anarchist revolution in Spain had established Fascist forces invaded and took over. Because of this I assumed that fascism was a constant threat to any leftest revolution and used Stalinist was an example of fascism rising from inside a communist movement.
kingme144 3 months ago
@kingme144 Fascism is heavily tied into economics just as much as politics. Fascism derives economically from capitalism, and it's really not accurate to describe Stalinism as a form of fascism. It certainly was authoritarian, but it was not capitalist or even mercantile.
I mean the actual driving ideology, not simply the one espoused for propaganda. The US is a good example - you cannot understand American history without understanding it is driven by capitalistic/imperialistic greed.
borbo23 3 months ago
@borbo23 I guess your right it just seems wrong some how to class it as communism simply because their was an oppressive class system. I went naturally for Fascism because its to the right of communism. Yes it is important to look critically at propaganda and read the true ideology of a nation or group from its actions. If you believed US propaganda you'd believe it was a anarcho-capitalist society
kingme144 3 months ago
@kingme144 Fascism is a Leftist movement. As for why I think the Bolshjeviks were Marxists, it has more to do with "propaganda" from teh ISO and like-minded Marxist groups claiming as much for decades.
How much longer must we endure Marxist lies? So many of those lies were revealed for what they were two decades ago, when the Russian Left fascist state collapsed. Why should we indulge Leftist attempts to weedle out of their numerous crimes?
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel A typically ignorant capitalist response. You do not even understand the history or definition of fascism. It is inherently capitalist government, the result of capitalism run rampant. This is the only possible explanation for such facts as the support major corporatons had for fascist states yet were diametrically opposed to communism.
If you want to discuss crimes, then you're going to lose. The mistakes and crimes of communist states (which I have never denied) --
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 Yeah. That must be it. I must have a problem with Marxist genocides because of my attachment to the practice of capital stock trading.
I'm quite familiar with world history, with Mussolini's works on fascism, and I have read the works of Goebbels in regards Nazism. I've read the works of Marx and Trotsky. I do not comment frivilously.
Communist states did not male "mistakes" when they killed people. Liquidating class enemies was their intention from the start.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel cont'd -- have nothing on the constant genocide of capitalism, or the fact that it currently causes the majority of the planet to live in constant misery to fuel its over-consumption.
There is no denying that the Bolsheviks represented the democratic and popular will of the Russian people, and while they did many things wrong, there is also a lot they did right (like defeating fascism). the current ahistorical trend of trying to mistake them for fascism only shows --
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 I do not accept the worldview of Marxists because it is absurd and self-serving. As for "defeating" fascism, they have accomplished two of the three phases necessary for this to happen. The first was defeating Nazi Germany, a rival socialist state (after allying with it). The second was in engineering the self-destruction of the USSR. We are still waiting on the collapse of the PRC.
And yes, socialist states frequently deal with capitalists. That's because Marxists are hypocrites.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel cont'd -- the intellectual bankruptcy of capitalism. They are so threatened by left-wing movements (made even more apparent by this year of revolutions) that they will do anything, and reduce their people to such abject ignorance (of which you are an example) that they cannot even have grasp basic concepts of ideology and economics.
borbo23 2 months ago
@borbo23 People involved in trade and commerce are threatened by "Left-wing movements" for the same reasons that merchants are threatened by pirates. Leftists thrive on stealing the wealth and labor of others. This is why they claim to seek the overthrow of the richest targets and, once in power, enslave and steal from the very "proletariat" they claim to be fighting in the name of.
It is very easy to understand the basic concepts behind Marxism. It's a Ponzi scheme, the Amway of ideologies.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel It always makes me laugh when capitalists say communism is a ponzi scheme. that's all capitalism is, it's not even hidden. It's a pyramid with a tiny number at the top feeding off of everyone else and doing absolutely nothing. You have no credibility after such a laughable statement.
borbo23 2 months ago
@DrCruel
"Left" "Right" do not exist, they are illusions to confuse the masses.
"Fascism is the complete opposite of Marxian socialism"-Benito Mussolini
Sismiques 2 months ago
@borbo23 You must be the most intelligent person who I have talked about this with. Although the others were communists and probably licked the idea of removing the horrors of the Bolshevik rule from their movement.
kingme144 3 months ago
@kingme144 Thank you. I apologize for the "idiotic" remark from before and any other rudenesses. I erred and thought you were the person who said "the left should be exterminated" (canisius19). I just didn't look at the name. You didn't do anything to deserve rudeness.
The Bolsheviks made a lot of mistakes, it was the first revolution of its kind to succeed. It doesn't excuse them, but the horrors that occurred do not mean communism is a failure - we just need to learn from those mistakes.
borbo23 3 months ago
@borbo23 Its fine it you tube rudeness is to be expected. I think that communism needs pretty specific conditions to succeed so a while bac I converted k to anarcho-communism(after converting from communism to anarchy, i find pure anarchy lacks a scientific approach) . but in places like Germany (Marx designed communism with his homeland in mind) I have no doubt that it could thrive.
kingme144 3 months ago
@kingme144 It did thrive, for a short while at least. They called it "National Socialism".
DrCruel 2 months ago
@borbo23 The Bolsheviks made no mistakes. They were methodical planners, and did exactly what they had wanted to do. The result - a dictatorship that enforced misery so that an ideological elite might prosper, is exactly what the Bolsheviks had in mind all along. The "capitalist" government they overthrew was democratic - anathema to the Bolsheviks, who were interested in establishing a "dictatorship of the proletariat", with the Bolsheviks as dictators.
DrCruel 2 months ago
@DrCruel
Democracy only for the bourgeoise and aristocracy, not for the masses.
Sismiques 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lenin ordered that Nicolas II and his daughters be shot in the basement. Yes, even little Anastasia was shot by Lenin's men.
RacerXGTO 5 months ago
To echo the words of Trotsky - Stalinism - The irresponsible despotism of bureaucracy over the people.....
989Mojo 5 months ago
@989Mojo Whatever criticisms can be levelled at Stalinism, this was long before Stalin took power.
borbo23 5 months ago
The Bolsheviks would surely not have countenanced sitting out of power for 4 years while another coalition "had their turn", for they are utterly convinced of their rightness that any alternative must be wrong.
The Mensheviks are part of the Fabian movement, and you see their vile underhanded creeping "Communism" and Authoritarianism in such conceits as "Social Democracy" and throughout an infested EU.
At least the Communists are open and honest about their intent. I do admire them for that,
harlingtonstraker 10 months ago
Great scene, though the commentary paints a rosy picture of the Bolsheviks; they did some terrible things, and often went out of their way to alienate other leftist parties (the Menshevik-Internationalists and Left SRs come to mind). I'm no anti-communist, but I suggest you read some books by Alexander Rabinowitch, and other revisionist historians who suggest that the Civil War wasn't so black and white as you make it (or inversely how Western scholars usually make it).
IneptTroopr 1 year ago
@IneptTroopr Thanks for the comment.
No one says the Bolsheviks didn't do bad things, but they really did help Russia (wood ploughs to nuclear power in thirty years) and were far better than any of the other groups in Russia - they also had a popular mandate, being the only party who kept their promise of trying to end the war.
borbo23 1 year ago
@borbo23 the vocie over is strictly from the perspective of a Bolshevik, when you see the later scenes with the Alec Guiness character you can see clearly the change, he is stuck in the system and admires the 'young doctor' for speaking openly, freely but dangerously and does what he can to help him, at considerable personal risk, the affection is genuine as he seeks out Zhivago's daughter (out of concern) but sees she is doing ok. A tremendous film!!
corcaighrebel 5 months ago
@borbo23 the vocie over is strictly from the perspective of a Bolshevik, when you see the later scenes with the Alec Guiness character you can see clearly the change, he is stuck in the system and admires the 'young doctor' for speaking openly, freely but dangerously and does what he can to help him, at considerable personal risk, the affection is genuine as he seeks out Zhivago's daughter (out of concern) but sees she is doing ok. A tremendous film!!
corcaighrebel 5 months ago
@borbo23 but you are right, the Bolsheviks hijacked the Revolution, abolished the real Soviets and established a one party state that led to Stalin and all that that involved, ultimately it failed to give working people what they deserved, a free, equal, meritocratic Republic.
corcaighrebel 5 months ago
Meritocratic? LOL you ultra lefts are hilarious. It's transparent that you get your rhetoric from neoliberals.
tj2tone 5 months ago
@IneptTroopr I helped write the commentary. While I haven't read Rabinowitch, we've both read several other books by revisionist historians including Sheila Fitzpatrick. The video's commentary is exactly a minute long- not enough time to present a scholarly explanation but enough time to show that the Bolsheviks did indeed deliver on their core promises.
tj2tone 1 year ago
@tj2tone And for the record, yes, tj2tone DID help write the commentary.
borbo23 5 months ago
@IneptTroopr And I suggest you to see the entire movie. Then you'll see if it's such a rosy picture of the Bolsheviks. Many points of view are shown in this movie. That one in the excerpt is a bolshevik's, then no wonder if it's rosy.
jean3oarsman 1 year ago
@jean3oarsman Oh, I wasn't challenging the movie, I actually think it does a fair job of being pretty open-minded to all sides, though maybe overall leaning towards anti-Bolshevik. I was actually referring to the little commentary by the video poster at the end.
IneptTroopr 11 months ago
From which movie is this video clip ?
NancyFrQC 2 years ago
The original Dr. Zhivago movie with Omar Sharif.
borbo23 2 years ago
Thanks!
NancyFrQC 2 years ago