Post Aj5cACYIvM73ADyEBk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #Aj2ACzkvn2127K6q48 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-17T23:31:07Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
"Stalin carried out a political counterrevolution against Bolshevism, basing himself on a privileged caste of officials that rose to power in a period of the ebb of the revolution following Lenin’s death. In order to consolidate his counterrevolutionary dictatorship, Stalin was obliged to murder all of Lenin’s comrades and a huge number of other genuine communists."– The Revolutionary Communist International Manifesto
(DIR) Post #Aj2H3ZJpPdb1CFstVY by kingtor@urbanists.social
2024-06-18T00:47:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom yes, but to one of your previous posts, Lenin didn't run a dictatorship of the proletariat, he was a dictator himself. I say this now because I used to think Stalin's corruption of the Soviet Union ruined it, but I now see it was ruined from day one. And Marx wasn't all that either. Communism has potential to be better than the Free Market, but a perfect Communist system is about as likely as a perfectly Free Market.
(DIR) Post #Aj2HoELzB7I9mi8y1I by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-18T00:56:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kingtor How do you define "ruined from day one"? Because the way I see it, the Soviet Union faced internal and external challenges rooted in class struggle and imperialist pressures that caused its degradation, not it being inherently flawed from the start.
(DIR) Post #Aj2PBBRuqGot7HoF5k by kingtor@urbanists.social
2024-06-18T02:18:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom as with any revolution, there were strange bedfellows in both Russian Revolutions, and Lenin et al (and let's not forget Stalin was in that et al) had to set up an iron fist dictatorship. No matter how well-meaning they were (and that is debatable), the dictatorship of the proletariat never stood a chance as long as Lenin and other intellectual elites were speaking for the proletariat. 🔋
(DIR) Post #Aj2Qu9kg6ERipzas5Y by kingtor@urbanists.social
2024-06-18T02:20:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and even the limits on the premiere's power left the Politburo with absolute power over the central government and any limit to their power over the soviets was easy to quash. /🧵
(DIR) Post #Aj2QuApg582WBmwNWK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-18T02:38:10Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kingtor I agree that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but what is your evidence that this expression can be applied to the Bolshevik leadership? The Bolsheviks did indeed consolidate power into their hands, but it was a necessary response to the external threats of invading armies and internal threats of counter-revolution, not so much a predetermined path to corruption, at least that's the way I see it.
(DIR) Post #Aj31n7yLnhfPdJvpey by donato27@mastodon.social
2024-06-18T09:31:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom por culpa de este tipejo, la revolución casi muere
(DIR) Post #Aj4FZsU1fdRGLXHefA by jeremy_list@hachyderm.io
2024-06-18T23:40:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @kingtor the bolsheviks became counter-revolutionary well before external threats became an issue: even joining forces with the German Imperial Army to attack other socialist projects.
(DIR) Post #Aj4HKW1D6ynoEnbkwK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T00:00:17Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@jeremy_list @kingtor The Bolsheviks made alliances and military decisions to defend the gains of the October Revolution from counter-revolutionary forces. This included agreements like the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in 1918. These alliances were not ideological shifts but temporary measures needed to navigate complex geopolitical challenges. They were tactical moves to buy time and resources crucial for strengthening the socialist revolution against significant odds.
(DIR) Post #Aj4KjwY3uXcncXn4zY by jeremy_list@hachyderm.io
2024-06-19T00:38:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @kingtor A tactical alliance would have been more like a ceasefire with the whites without actually helping them, not joining them in a war of attrition so bad they collapsed immediately after technically winning it.
(DIR) Post #Aj4OEe7ilPzTJgnlJo by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T01:17:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeremy_list @kingtor 1/3 The alliances formed by the Bolsheviks, such as the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and other agreements during the Civil War, were strategic measures aimed at securing peace on one front (with Germany, for example) to focus on defending the socialist revolution from internal and external counter-revolutionary forces.
(DIR) Post #Aj4OHBcJCukDm1JuIC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T01:18:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeremy_list @kingtor 2/3 There is a practical necessity of alliances during wartime. In the face of overwhelming military pressure, a temporary ceasefire or strategic alliance can provide breathing room to consolidate forces, secure resources, and rally support internally. Such tactical maneuvering was essential for the survival of the socialist experiment in Russia.
(DIR) Post #Aj4OHmYLsaZ2KSkllI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T01:18:17Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@jeremy_list @kingtor 3/3 Revolutionary movements often face complex and contradictory choices in wartime. While maintaining ideological purity is important, pragmatic decisions are sometimes required to navigate and survive in a hostile geopolitical environment. Also, the eventual outcome of the Russian Civil War is evidence of the effectiveness of the Bolshevik strategy.
(DIR) Post #Aj57OqIAs7Z3tEvY00 by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-19T09:43:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Many authoritarian actions were taken BEFORE the Civil War, such as dispersing unwanted soviets, strengthening the power of the party, replacing self-government with one-man rule in factories, abolishing the election of officers in the army, and so on. Lenin and Trotsky themselves quite honestly said later that they established the dictatorship of the party and saw nothing wrong in it. The same Trotsky even after Stalin's victory will talk about the need for a dictatorship of the party. @kingtor
(DIR) Post #Aj5BzGVLI9ubQai3jk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T10:35:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu @kingtor 1/3 The actions taken by Lenin and Trotsky during the Russian Revolution were responses to the specific historical conditions they faced. The Russian Revolution occurred in a context of intense class struggle, civil war, and external intervention. The authoritarian measures implemented were necessary to protect themselves and defend against counter-revolutionary forces.
(DIR) Post #Aj5C2AlX5LocUvfWxk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T10:35:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu @kingtor 2/3 There's a huge difference between the concept of a "dictatorship of the party" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The latter refers to the transitional state where the working class holds political power to suppress the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to begin dismantling capitalist relations of production. This is not a dictatorship in the modern authoritarian sense; it's a phase of revolutionary transformation.
(DIR) Post #Aj5C3DsB1CkgQMHFqK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T10:35:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu @kingtor 3/3 The Russian Revolution and its aftermath occurred under specific conditions of extreme class war and economic devastation, which necessitated certain actions that might not be applicable or justifiable in different circumstances.
(DIR) Post #Aj5MMXEgFbMfWMePPk by EredYasibu@mastodon.ml
2024-06-19T12:31:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @kingtor 1) As I have already said, these actions were taken BEFORE, I repeat, BEFORE the civil war, so it is impossible to justify these actions by the war2) I agree that the theoretical dictatorship of the proletariat in the sense of the power of the class itself without the governed and ruled, and therefore not a dictatorship, and the dictatorship of the party are not the same thing. But bolsheviks believed that the dictatorship of the party was the dictatorship of the proletariat.3) See, Lenin promised many libertarian things in State and Revolution. At the same time, he said many times that there would be very difficult conditions for victory, that there was bound to be civil war, and scolded those who wanted to wait for better conditions. It is strange to promise something and then to give it up because of difficult conditions, while you yourself say that these conditions will be there and that it is not worth giving up revolutions because of these difficulties.
(DIR) Post #Aj5NczGzsNJz458wJk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T12:45:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu @kingtor 1/3 The conditions before the civil war had intense class struggle, exploitation, and oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. The Bolsheviks actions were necessary responses to the oppressive conditions Russia faced to advance the interests of the proletariat towards a socialist transformation. Their actions were necessary to consolidate power in the hands of the working class during the transition from capitalism to socialism.
(DIR) Post #Aj5NfvyCc61Tgml0vg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T12:46:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu @kingtor 2/3 The dictatorship of the party was a transitional stage towards the dictatorship of the proletariat. The party was the organized vanguard of the proletariat, and its aim was to guide the revolutionary process and protect the gains of the working class.
(DIR) Post #Aj5NiCDdAhY8fB3JPk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T12:46:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EredYasibu @kingtor 3/3 Lenin did advocate for libertarian ideals and promised a stateless, classless society in "State and Revolution," but the harsh realities of the post-revolutionary period forced practical adjustments to the immediate goals and methods. Lenin's flexibility and pragmatism in responding to these challenges were not a betrayal of his principles; they were necessary adaptations to ensure the survival of the socialist state.
(DIR) Post #Aj5WvGxvjYD6jl1EAK by kingtor@urbanists.social
2024-06-19T14:29:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom my evidence comes from Russian history classes I took in high school and college, and conversations I had with those teachers/professors among other people educated in Russian history. Obviously, it's impossible for anyone to know intent of Lenin, Stalin or anyone else at the time, but the proof is in the pudding. I guess the question is at what point was the pudding recipe set.
(DIR) Post #Aj5XHWJDMtc6h6aCIK by kingtor@urbanists.social
2024-06-19T14:33:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @jeremy_list maybe not ideological shifts per se, but certainly indicative of idealogy
(DIR) Post #Aj5ZyarOWRUrAcEkca by kingtor@urbanists.social
2024-06-19T15:03:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @EredYasibu "necessary adaptations" that led to, in my opinion, the inevitable result of a dictatorship of the Premiere with the increasingly coerced support of the Politburo, and which quite probably led to what came after with the de facto dictatorship of Putin. In terms of economics, Russia went from feudalism with very small pockets of capitalism to feudalism branded as socialism to hyper-capitalism.
(DIR) Post #Aj5cACYIvM73ADyEBk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T15:28:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kingtor @EredYasibu 1/2 ["necessary adaptations" that led to, in my opinion, the inevitable result of a dictatorship of the Premiere with the increasingly coerced support of the Politburo] The Stalinism that came about after Lenin wasn't necessarily an "inevitable result" of the necessary adoptions Lenin and the Bolsheviks made. There's are many complex factors that resulted in Stalinism, far too many for it to be blamed on ot being an inevitability.
(DIR) Post #Aj5cB61yejWpEBHCZk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-19T15:28:40Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kingtor @EredYasibu 2/2 [In terms of economics, Russia went from feudalism with very small pockets of capitalism to feudalism branded as socialism to hyper-capitalism.] There is a lot of debate on what would actually constitute socialism, and the term can be interpreted differently depending on one's ideological stance. My view was that the Soviet Union was on the path towards socialism under Lenin, but then got derailed under Stalin.