you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

@bubblybubbles Having read some books myself I can't help but bring up the betrayal of the non-communists after the revolution, notably the murder of anarchists, as pointed out by Emma Goldman and others (in exile).

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Emma Goldman (and others) who were in exile because instead of organising with workers in America, they were busy deciding what the workers should be doing and going around blowing shit up.

    Honestly unsurprising that someone as smug as you would like Emma Goldman's writing, she's as smug and pompus as any modern anarchist twitter acedemic. Tell me more about how you think workers have no autonomy and are lead like sheep by like 1 spoopy bad guy

    spoiler

    (Сталина 👻)

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 8 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago

    The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

    The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.

    The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism — not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience — could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture? The historical evidence would suggest it was not.

    Decentralized parochial autonomy is the graveyard of insurgency — which may be one reason why there has never been a successful anarcho-syndicalist revolution. Ideally, it would be a fine thing to have only local, self-directed, worker participation, with minimal bureaucracy, police, and military. This probably would be the development of socialism, were socialism ever allowed to develop unhindered by counterrevolutionary subversion and attack.

    One might recall how, in 1918-20, fourteen capitalist nations, including the United States, invaded Soviet Russia in a bloody but unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the revolutionary Bolshevik government.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] 5 points 11 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Bolshevik was a faction name in use after a split in 1903, the minority within the party, who chose the name because the amount of delegates leaving the congress instead of voting on resolutions gave the Bolsheviks the majority vote

    you're presenting it like they called themselves 'the majority' only after 1917

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-2 replies)