this post was submitted on 19 May 2026

119 points (99.2% liked)

History Memes

historymemes@piefed.social

3,149 readers

2,192 active

488 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
Avoid posting AI-generated content whenever possible.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:

founded 2 years ago

moderators

PugJesus@piefed.social

PugJesus@lemmy.world

"Yes, we were totally the ones that overthrew the Tsar!" - Red fash bootlickers spreading bullshit 20th Century History (media.piefed.social)

submitted 5 months ago by PugJesus@piefed.social to c/historymemes@piefed.social

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 64 points 5 months ago (30 children)

Explanation: The February Revolution overthrew the Tsarist government, and implemented, in its place, a socialist-leaning provisional government which scheduled elections for later that year.

The Bolsheviks, wholesome lot that they are, overthrew the socialist Provisional Government in the October/November Revolution, and dissolved the subsequently returned democratically elected legislature, kicking off a ~4 year civil war.

Don't worry, they paraded themselves as the TRUE anti-Tsarists to future generations, though! 😊

hideshow 30 child comments

[+] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 38 points 5 months ago (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Klear@piefed.world 19 points 5 months ago

*kosmonaut points gun at another*

parent

[–] Slotos@feddit.nl 18 points 5 months ago (21 children)

Communists - the leading cause of deaths for communists, anarchists, and socialists alike.

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 25 points 5 months ago (20 children)

Communists only in name.

We don't refer to the German National Socialist Workers Party as socialists, they're Nazis. Or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as democratic, they're a dictatorship. So why should we refer to the Bolsheviks, or Communist Party of the Soviet Union, as communist when they neither achieved or even attempted to implement communism?

We need to get over this combination of self named propaganda and western cold war propaganda and separate the term communist from the USSR.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Does calling them Soviets solve this? I’ve never liked the anti-communist implications of trashing the corrupt and flawed Soviet system.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Bolsheviks.

Lenin et co actually stripped power from the Soviets (Workers' Councils), 'funny' enough, once the Bolsheviks had overthrown the legislature.

parent

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago (16 children)

they neither achieved or even attempted to implement communism?

They did try to implement it, though. Or rather they started a transformation (i.e. collectivization, de-kulakization, etc) of society that they thought was necessary for communism. Say what you want about Lenin, Stalin and co. (and there's a lot to be said), they were true believers in the stuff they were selling. It's absolutely fair to call them communist.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 13 points 5 months ago* (15 children)

They did try to implement it, though. Or rather they started a transformation (i.e. collectivization, de-kulakization, etc) of society that they thought was necessary for communism.

... yet it's "generous" to describe the provisional government which was dominated by socialist parties as socialist leaning?

Say what you want about Lenin, Stalin and co. (and there’s a lot to be said), they were true believers in the stuff they were selling. It’s absolutely fair to call them communist.

Stalin's position as a true believer is dubious at best.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 9 points 5 months ago (10 children)

Stalin's position as a true believer is bonkers!

Lenin there could be an argument for, although I think he was just a very clever manipulator that used the guise of being on the side of the people to gain power. But there's at least a debate to be had there.

But Stalin?! Aye, that's bollocks.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago* (9 children)

I talked about Stalin in my reply to Pug so I'll stick to Lenin here: Your framing is only possible in hindsight. Remember that Lenin was a Bolshevik back when it was the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party, a full 20 years before the revolution. He was expelled from university for getting into radical student politics before Nicholas II even took the throne. Same as Stalin—but even more so due to being from a wealthy and prestigious family with lots of opportunity for social advancement—if he wasn't a true believer he could've done literally anything with his life. Painting evil mass murderers as fakes is appealing, but in this case it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny; both had already been committed radicals for way too long by the time of the revolution.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 9 points 5 months ago* (8 children)

Your framing is only possible in hindsight.

No, plenty of people at the time condemned Lenin as a hypocrite without any real principles and a tyrant-in-waiting.

if he wasn’t a true believer he could’ve done literally anything with his life. Painting evil mass murderers as fakes is appealing, but in this case it doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny; both had already been committed radicals for way too long by the time of the revolution.

Are there any major mass murderers who came to power, rather than inheriting it (literally or effectively) who weren't true believers by your criteria?

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children)

No, plenty of people at the time condemned Lenin as a hypocrite without any real principles and a tyrant-in-waiting.

Which is just the sort of intra-socialist mudslinging that would've been a dime a dozen in the decades leading up to the revolution. Nobody goes to prison for principles they don't have.

Are there any major mass murderers who came to power, rather than inheriting it (literally or effectively) who weren't true believers by your criteria?

I mean any mass murderer has to be a true believer in something, at least so they can sleep at night; the question is whether they're true believers in the thing they're espousing in public, and in that case my example would be Hitler. He believed in the bigotry and genocide to be sure, but the "socialism" part of "national socialism" was obviously bogus. That said, most mass murderers do at least vaguely believe in the reasons they espouse for the mass murder; it's hard to be a mass murderer otherwise.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

Which is just the sort of intra-socialist mudslinging that would’ve been a dime a dozen in the decades leading up to the revolution.

Okay, but it clearly demonstrates that the framing of Lenin as the fascist scumsucking mass-murderer-in-waiting that he was does not require hindsight, as numerous socialists at the time, by your own admission, recognized that fact.

Nobody goes to prison for principles they don’t have.

That is an incredibly naive position to take. People willingly suffer for all sorts of fucking reasons, and principles are pretty far down the list.

I mean any mass murderer has to be a true believer in something,

... "their grip on power" comes to mind.

at least so they can sleep at night;

... I don't even know where to begin on this one.

the question is whether they’re true believers in the thing they’re espousing in public, and in that case my example would be Hitler. He believed in the bigotry and genocide to be sure, but the “socialism” part of “national socialism” was obviously bogus.

He also didn't espouse socialism in public.

That said, most mass murderers do at least vaguely believe in the reasons they espouse for the mass murder; it’s hard to be a mass murderer otherwise.

So your answer to the question is 'no'.

Chiang Kai-Shek? A true believer (in what, God only fucking knows). Pierre Laval? A true believer. Jean-Bédel Bokassa? A true believer. Blaise Compaoré? A true believer.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Okay, but it clearly demonstrates that the framing of Lenin as the fascist scumsucking mass-murderer-in-waiting that he was does not require hindsight, as numerous socialists at the time, by your own admission, recognized that fact.

That's... not what I was saying though? Whether Lenin had the makings of a tyrant or not, he had to have believed in the revolution or he wouldn't have dedicated his life to it (which, love him or hate it, that's exactly what he did). Lenin had been a professional revolutionary for more than 20 years by 1917, and the idea that this was all an act so he could eventually seize ultimate power is frankly ridiculous without some hard evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That is an incredibly naive position to take. People willingly suffer for all sorts of fucking reasons, and principles are pretty far down the list.

I mean unless he got himself expelled from university and derailed his career for material gain, it'd have to be principle.

He also didn't espouse socialism in public.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?" "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution […] We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

So your answer to the question is 'no'.

No? The answer to my question is "Hitler," but also of these the one I know is Kai-shek, and that guy was absolutely a true believer... in radical conservatism, rule by the ultra-rich and somehow also Georgism??? Either way current or future tyrants craft their ideologies at least in part to justify their rule, making them essentially rationalizations, in which case yeah mass murdering dictators had ways to rationalize their atrocities. It's impossible not to kill thousands or millions of people and not feel something about it; that's just not how people are built.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

That’s… not what I was saying though?

Your framing is only possible in hindsight.

Whether Lenin had the makings of a tyrant or not, he had to have believed in the revolution or he wouldn’t have dedicated his life to it (which, love him or hate it, that’s exactly what he did). Lenin had been a professional revolutionary for more than 20 years by 1917, and the idea that this was all an act so he could eventually seize ultimate power is frankly ridiculous without some hard evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"The idea that people would work towards power all their lives is ridiculous" is really the position you're taking.

... come the fuck on.

I mean unless he got himself expelled from university and derailed his career for material gain, it’d have to be principle.

This may be a shock, so I invite you to sit if you aren't sitting already, but there are more things in life than just material gain and principles.

“Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?” “Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, “is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution […] We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”

Which has about all the validity of redefining democracy as autocracy, and then claiming to be a believer in democracy.

But furthermore, and contrary to your claims, this would establish Hitler as a 'true believer' in the socialism he espoused in public.

No? The answer to my question is “Hitler,”

... but you already explicitly said that you considered Hitler a true believer in his core causes.

but also of these the one I know is Kai-shek, and that guy was absolutely a true believer… in radical conservatism, rule by the ultra-rich and somehow also Georgism???

Radical conservatism, except for the part where the KMT was anti-conservative in both rhetoric and, when it suited Kai-shek et co's power-seeking to be so, action. Rule by the ultra-rich, except for the part where the ultra-rich took a backseat to the military and any-fucking-one-else that Kai-shek felt he needed at the time.

Either way current or future tyrants craft their ideologies at least in part to justify their rule, making them essentially rationalizations, in which case yeah mass murdering dictators had ways to rationalize their atrocities.

So in what way is being a true believer different than being a venal opportunist?

It’s impossible not to kill thousands or millions of people and not feel something about it; that’s just not how people are built.

It's incredibly easy. You probably kill people all the time, man. I kill people all the time. All you have to do is reduce it from seeing someone face-to-face (and some people can do even that, though they're generally exceptional and often sick fucks) to a distant, bureaucratic process.

We're both probably relatively normal human beings. Actually, fuck that - we're both probably above-average in conscientiousness. You heap moral opprobrium on the consciences major political actors all the time for their murders - not without cause. Do you want to take a guess at how easily they would sign away millions of lives and sleep easy for the least cause of staying in power?

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

"The idea that people would work towards power all their lives is ridiculous" is really the position you're taking.

No, my position was that someone working exclusively toward power wouldn't become a professional revolutionary years before the system was seriously shaken. There were simply better paths to power available to someone like Lenin.

This may be a shock, so I invite you to sit if you aren't sitting already, but there are more things in life than just material gain and principles.

I am shook.

Still, what motivation would Lenin have had to go through more than two decades of radical politics other than believing in radical politics? That's a massive hole that you have to address before your argument makes sense.

Radical conservatism, except for the part where the KMT was anti-conservative in both rhetoric and, when it suited Kai-shek et co's power-seeking to be so, action. Rule by the ultra-rich, except for the part where the ultra-rich took a backseat to the military and any-fucking-one-else that Kai-shek felt he needed at the time.

Okay admittedly I'm not the most familiar with Kai-shek's career, but also okay? The fact that he engaged in opportunism doesn't mean he didn't believe in anything; it just means he was willing to lie about his beliefs.

So in what way is being a true believer different than being a venal opportunist?

100% venal opportunists usually aren't a thing—like I said even someone who's in it for power needs to have a reason/justification why they deserve power, which is why I was arguing for a stronger claim: that Lenin and Stalin believed in values at the very least similar to the ones they espoused in public. Hitler fails this test because he didn't believe in socialism in any meaningful sense of the wrod. Kai-shek also doesn't. Trump doesn't need explanation (in hindsight that should've been my answer).

You probably kill people all the time, man. I kill people all the time. All you have to do is reduce it from seeing someone face-to-face (and some people can do even that, though they're generally exceptional and often sick fucks) to a distant, bureaucratic process.

I'd hope not? In the first place there's not enough people for a significant fraction of people to be killing them all the time.

Do you want to take a guess at how easily they would sign away millions of lives and sleep easy for the least cause of staying in power?

But that's the thing: Stay in power for what? There usually needs to be something there. This is counterterrorism, democracy, rule of law, "natural rights" (aka private property), the prosperity of the master race, national interest, etc depending on which utter piece of shit we're talking about. It's the existence of these justifications that allows them to do what they do.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

No, my position was that someone working exclusively toward power wouldn’t become a professional revolutionary years before the system was seriously shaken. There were simply better paths to power available to someone like Lenin.

... are there? What avenues to absolute power are there when the core ideology of the extant system is Tsarist "Unshakable autocracy"? What power is a non-revolutionary law student going to gain under that system?

I am shook.

Still, what motivation would Lenin have had to go through more than two decades of radical politics other than believing in radical politics? That’s a massive hole that you have to address before your argument makes sense.

A desire for power. I thought that was clear by my previous statement.

That being said, there's also adventurism, personal ties, a desire for fame or infamy, even sheer fucking boredom. Shit man, people do insane and long-term shit all the time for reasons other than material gain or principles.

But hey, according to your theory, every Old Bolshevik bank robber was a true believer.

Okay admittedly I’m not the most familiar with Kai-shek’s career, but also okay? The fact that he engaged in opportunism doesn’t mean he didn’t believe in anything; it just means he was willing to lie about his beliefs.

See, your entire position isn't any sort of falsifiable theory or assertion as it is an article of faith. There is no form of proof that could possibly dissuade you from the notion you've taken up. No actions or statements matter; only the axiom that every mass murderer is a true believer deep down.

You remind me of the fundamentalist Christians I grew up around.

100% venal opportunists usually aren’t a thing—like I said even someone who’s in it for power needs to have a reason/justification why they deserve power,

... this is incredibly naive.

that Lenin and Stalin believed in values at the very least similar to the ones they espoused in public.

They believed in socialism because they took power away from the workers?

That's your definition of socialism?

Hitler fails this test because he didn’t believe in socialism in any meaningful sense of the wrod.

But one-man direction of the workplace - that is socialism in a meaningful sense of the word? Reducing the peasantry to serfdom under a totalitarian state - that's socialism in a meaningful sense of the word?

Kai-shek also doesn’t.

Okay? I didn't ask if Kai-shek was a fucking socialist, I asked if he was a true believer despite having no apparent genuine beliefs from his statements or his actions.

Trump doesn’t need explanation (in hindsight that should’ve been my answer).

Why is Trump not a true believer, when every other fascist shithead is? You already admitted, again, that Hitler believed in the core causes, and your only point of disputation is that it wasn't "real" socialism he believed in; despite the fact that he didn't even claim to believe in the same socialism you're defining.

Or hell, maybe he did - God fucking knows you've already went to bat for oligarchy once. Is your only quibble with Hitler's socialism that the Junkers won out instead of the Strasserists?

I’d hope not? In the first place there’s not enough people for a significant fraction of people to be killing them all the time.

Fucker, we live in comfortable enough circumstances to be arguing on an obscure web forum over history and politics. We are privileged here, and we are both killing people.

But that’s the thing: Stay in power for what? It’s the existence of these justifications that allows them to do what they do.

Jesus fucking Christ, you can't be serious.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

What avenues to absolute power are there when the core ideology of the extant system is Tsarist "Unshakable autocracy"?

Definitely not absolute power, but there was no reason for radical student to ever expect absolute power. His father was a high-ranking regional bureaucrat and his mother was a wealthy landowner; someone as talented, hardworking and ruthless as Lenin would've easily been able to get promoted to a high government post, which would've made any future ambitions much easier to achieve. It'd have definitely been easier than overthrowing the government—a pipe dream as late as April 1917.

But hey, according to your theory, every Old Bolshevik bank robber was a true believer.

I mean fucking yes (more or less, my personal line is February 1917)? Anyone not a true believer would've dropped out multiple times over. Speaking of which, is there any body of historiography you're drawing from here or is it just your (very justified) hate for the guy? What's your evidence here?

No actions or statements matter; only the axiom that every mass murderer is a true believer deep down.

No? Only that most believe in some kind of coherent political or social program (again, Trump being a notable exception). I'm willing to change my mind, but I'd need evidence, and this sounds more the purview of psychology than history. Either way again, and I won't repeat this a third time, I'm applying a tighter standard to these mass murderers: Are the ideas they actually believe in reasonably close to those they espouse, no matter what those are? Kai-shek fails this standard because any standard fitting his actions would contradict his espoused beliefs.

Why is Trump not a true believer, when every other fascist shithead is?

I mean have you ever seen Trump explaining a coherent belief system? He's clearly in it for the grift, and he clearly believes he deserves to grift the shit out of everyone, but I doubt he has anything resembling a coherent political vision. However, he didn't spend decades risking getting arrested or killed by secret police for it—this is what a grifter lookd like.

despite the fact that he didn't even claim to believe in the same socialism you're defining.

I mean, the (still fascist) self-proclaimed socialists definitely thought he did up until he killed the shit out of them. Weaponized vagueness is a classic fascist tactic and absolutely does count as not believing in what he said; you're grasping at straws here.

God fucking knows you've already went to bat for oligarchy once.

Uh what the fuck? I kept calling them mass murdering tyrants to make it clear that I'm not batting for them here. If you're just going to read whatever you want into what I say then this is a waste of time.

Is your only quibble with Hitler's socialism that the Junkers won out instead of the Strasserists?

Um this

His vision called for a radical restructuring of society based on a romantic, anti-modernist rejection of urban industrialism, aiming for a "de-proletarianized" agrarian society governed by "state feudalism".

Doesn't sound like socialism to me either so no.

We are privileged here, and we are both killing people.

Not to go on a tangent, but as much as you expect. There's plenty of people comfortable enough to argue about politics online, and the obscureness of the forum is irrelevant. If you calculated the number of deaths per person you'd get a small fraction, which well I make a point of trying but there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. If you have examples I'm all ears though.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 1 point 5 months ago

Definitely not absolute power, but there was no reason for radical student to ever expect absolute power. His father was a high-ranking regional bureaucrat and his mother was a wealthy landowner; someone as talented, hardworking and ruthless as Lenin would’ve easily been able to get promoted to a high government post, which would’ve made any future ambitions much easier to achieve. It’d have definitely been easier than overthrowing the government—a pipe dream as late as April 1917.

Jesus fucking Christ. You think overthrowing the Tsar was a pipe dream after the February Revolution.

The Tsarist government was widely regarded as on borrowed time since Bloody Sunday in 1905, and was regarded as unstable even before that. Not only that, but this reflects a complete lack of understanding of ambition of powerful men throughout history.

For someone who tells me that I need to study history (apparently my years in college for just that major were insufficient compared to your collection of worldview-affirming factoids garnered through online games of telephone), you have repeatedly demonstrated an appalling lack of even basic knowledge of the facts of the situation, down to the fucking existence of elections before the overthrow of the provisional government and the prominent participation of socialists from the very start.

I mean fucking yes (more or less, my personal line is February 1917)? Anyone not a true believer would’ve dropped out multiple times over. Speaking of which, is there any body of historiography you’re drawing from here or is it just your (very justified) hate for the guy? What’s your evidence here?

The issue here is, at its core, one of principle rather than Stalin specifically - you are asserting, as I have pointed out multiple times at this point in the conversation, a worldview of total incoherence insofar as revolutionaries are concerned, with any long-time revolutionary being a dedicated ideologue with no possibility of other motivations being their core impetus. In this conception, even the most venal opportunist and constant turncloak is necessarily considered a true believer regardless of their words or their actions by simple exposure to danger over a period of time, because you are apparently incapable of imagining any other reason why people stay a course of action.

It's axiomatic, and utterly fucking braindead, the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from a religious fanatic discussing their theology, not a fucking discussion of history and politics with someone who is supposedly left-sympathetic.

Uh what the fuck? At calling them mass murdering tyrants to stress this point. If you’re just going to read whatever you want into what I say then this is a waste of time.

This fucking you, buddy?

No offense, but yeah no you have to be kidding here. Soviet rule under Lenin and Stalin was what turned Russia into a developed country. Virtually every indicator of a modern (for the time period) quality of life exploded. The idea that they did “nothing but create bureaucratized oligarchy” is simply not a serious historical position, and if you seriously believe that you should get back to studying. This is a position not worth debating.

I mean have you ever seen Trump explaining a coherent belief system?

I haven't seen Stalin explain a coherent belief system either. Yet he's a true believer, and Trump is not. For that matter, why does a belief system need to be coherent to be truly believed in? I can cite any number of religious maniacs with contradictory bronze-and-iron-age belief systems and texts who are nonetheless true believers.

He’s clearly in it for the grift, and he clearly believes he deserves to grift the shit out of everyone, but I doubt he has anything resembling a coherent political vision. However, he didn’t spend decades risking getting arrested or killed by secret police for it—this is what a grifter lookd like.

... Trump absolutely has spent decades risking getting arrested. For that matter, the Tsarist autocracy rarely outright killed political opponents, preferring arrest and internal exile - especially for privileged middle class kids like Lenin, who enjoyed a very comfortable exile.

I mean, the (still fascist) self-proclaimed socialists definitely thought he did up until he killed the shit out of them. Weaponized vagueness is a classic fascist tactic and absolutely does count as not believing in what he said; you’re grasping at straws here.

... his stated view of socialism doesn't even contradict his actions. You're ironically engaging in the traditional fascist tactic of treating words as having contradictory meanings in the same fucking argument.

Doesn’t sound like socialism to me either so no.

But the fascist conception of one-man rule in the workplace DOES sound like socialism to you?

Not to go on a tangent, but as much as you expect. There’s plenty of people comfortable enough to argue about politics online, and the obscureness of the forum is irrelevant. If you calculated the number of deaths per person you’d get a small fraction, which well I make a point of trying but there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism. If you have examples I’m all ears though.

Simply by being literate, educated, English-speaking, and with enough time to argue for hours over history, you are necessarily, as am I, sacrificing time which could be spent laboring to save the lives of others.

Do you know how much it costs, even with all the graft and overhead of charity organizations, to provide life-saving supplies to individuals in areas like, say, Palestine?

Do you know how much your time is worth?

parent

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Stalin's position as a true believer is dubious at best.

I mean he certainly didn't believe in democracy, but the way the economy of the USSR was run was the most communist thing the world had ever seen by that point (that lasted longer than three years). The communism s mixed with Stalin's authoritarianism, bigotry and paranoia, but there's no way collectivization and the five year plans were anything but (preparation for) communism. Besides, Stalin was a Bolshevik from when they were robbing banks to fund their activities, so it's not like he joined for the upward mobility. If he wasn't a true believer he could've been doing literally anything else with his life.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 5 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

I mean he certainly didn’t believe in democracy, but the way the economy of the USSR was run was the most communist thing the world had ever seen by that point (that lasted longer than three years).

What the ever-loving fuck.

This... this is the same 'communist' economy which openly declared that one-man direction in the workplace was the founding principle of socialism?

The communism s mixed with Stalin’s authoritarianism, bigotry and paranoia, but there’s no way collectivization and the five year plans were anything but (preparation for) communism.

Because they... reduced peasants and proletariat into the position of effective serfdom under a bureaucratic despotism not dissimilar to pre-modern regimes like Confucian China...?

That's... that's what preparation for communism looks like to you?

"It's not capitalist so it must be on the way to communism" is not a very good lens with which to view economics.

Besides, Stalin was a Bolshevik from when they were robbing banks to fund their activities, so it’s not like he joined for the upward mobility. If he wasn’t a true believer he could’ve been doing literally anything else with his life.

This can't be fucking serious.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

This... this is the same 'communist' economy which openly declared that one-man direction in the workplace was the founding principle of socialism?

Yep, exactly those guys. Again he was authoritarian as fuck, but it's not like the USSR Communists invented authoritarian socialism; that was already a thing by that point. One can be a socialist without believing in democracy.

Because they... reduced peasants and proletariat into the position of effective serfdom under a bureaucratic despotism not dissimilar to pre-modern regimes like Confucian China...?

Premodern China had private property, though, which is the crux of the thing here. Political systems and economic systems influence each other, but in terms of categorization they're more or less orthogonal.

That's... that's what preparation for communism looks like to you?

I mean it's not my idea of preparation for communism, but it's an idea of preparation for communism. Industrialization and modernization as prerequisites wouldn't have been particularly controversial. From there the only logical leap needed is "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" and "if we don't hurry they'll fucking kill us" (which is basically what happened). Again I don't agree with the logic, but it does exist and doesn't outwardly contradict socialist ideas if you're willing to take a far-more-than-healthy dose of "the ends justify the means."

This can't be fucking serious.

...why?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yep, exactly those guys. Again he was authoritarian as fuck, but it’s not like the USSR Communists invented authoritarian socialism; that was already a thing by that point. One can be a socialist without believing in democracy.

...

Please note that I cited one-man direction in the workplace.

In what world is managerial control by bureaucrats in an undemocratic system socialism?

Premodern China had private property, though, which is the crux of the thing here.

Technically so did the Stalinist-era Soviet Union. In both cases, to varying degrees, it was marginalized in favor of state control.

Political systems and economic systems influence each other, but in terms of categorization they’re more or less orthogonal.

what

I mean it’s not my idea of preparation for communism, but it’s an idea of preparation for communism. Industrialization and modernization as prerequisites wouldn’t have been particularly controversial.

... "Democracy is a prerequisite for socialism" gets you to call the architects indistinguishable from liberals, and therefore unworthy of being called even 'socialist-leaning', but "Genocide and suppression of the proletariat is a prerequisite for socialism" means that it's unfair to call them anything but true-believer communists?

From there the only logical leap needed is “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” and “if we don’t hurry they’ll fucking kill us” (which is basically what happened).

fucking what

…why?

... because people use fringe organizations to climb the ladder all the time without being true believers?

"Every Old Bolshevik, bottom-to-top, was a true believer!" is a fucking insane position to take, and what your claim necessarily implies. Not only that, but it also necessarily suggests many of the socialists you've derided are, likewise, true believers and thus 'deserving' of being called socialists - yet in contradiction to this necessary implication, you parrot the Bolshevik line of them just being liberals painted red (ironic, considering Bolsheviks are fascists painted red, but there's no power like projection). Furthermore, your position suggests that few, if any, major mass murderers were anything but true believers, not opportunists, which is dubious at best.

parent

[–] Klear@piefed.world -1 points 5 months ago

We need to get over this combination of self named propaganda and western cold war propaganda and separate the term communist from the USSR.

That's like saying you want to start using the swastika as a symbol of the sun. It speaks of extreme ignorance at best.

parent

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

a socialist-leaning provisional government

That's... very generous phrasing.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

In what way is it generous?

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

The provisional government was full of socialists who didn't want to govern and politicians who didn't want to be socialist, and these two groups only agreed on feeding more Russian (not yet Soviet) bodies into the war machine. I mean socialists only even participated in the provisional government after it became literally impossible to let liberals run the show, which was clearly what they actually wanted. In the end, there was very little socialism to be had in the decisions made by the provisional government, hence my remark. A "socialist" government that refuses to do socialism is indistinguishable from a liberal government, so the provisional government can only be socialist if socialism is a label one puts on things rather than real policies that improve the lives of the working class. And of course one can't forget that the leader of the government for half of its "socialist" lifetime was... Alexander Kerensky.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The provisional government was full of socialists who didn’t want to govern and politicians who didn’t want to be socialist, and these two groups only agreed on feeding more Russian (not yet Soviet) bodies into the war machine.

... the whole point of the provisional government was to organize elections so that decisions could be made on a democratic basis. I'm sorry you feel that democracy is just an obstacle to a 'truly' socialist regime?

The main reason why the war continued was that the Entente threatened to revoke aid to Russia if it pulled out of the war, which would have led to a worsening economic situation in a period when economic hardship was literally what toppled the Tsarist regime.

I mean socialists only even participated in the provisional government after it became literally impossible to let liberals run the show, which was clearly what they actually wanted.

Wow, I didn't know that socialists being involved since the very beginning of the Provisional Government in fucking March was a sign that they didn't participate in it. That's amazing.

In the end, there was very little socialism to be had in the decisions made by the provisional government, hence my remark.

Again, because the provisional government's purpose was to organize elections. Though I'm sure if they had boldly set forward, the accusations of the Bolsheviks and their defenders would have been precisely that they were acting without a democratic mandate from the workers, in the same way that the Bolsheviks hypocritically banged numerous other drums in 1917, and whose echoes are still heard in the mouths of useful idiots today.

A “socialist” government that refuses to do socialism is indistinguishable from a liberal government so the provisional government can only be socialist if socialism is a label one puts on things rather than real policies that improve the lives of the working class.

... yet a 'communist' government which does nothing but create bureaucratized oligarchy and is indistinguishable from a fascist government is 'absolutely fair' to call communist?

And of course one can’t forget that the leader of the government for half of its “socialist” lifetime was… Alexander Kerensky.

... the long-time SR politician who is despised and slandered to this day by tankie bootlickers?

I guess his involvement long before socialism was victorious in the Russian Empire doesn't qualify him as a true believer, unlike the Great Genius Stalin?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

... the whole point of the provisional government was to organize elections so that decisions could be made on a democratic basis.

Except for the war, which they evidently never intended to put to a democratic vote (since they intended to only hold them after the war was won).

I'm sorry you feel that democracy is just an obstacle to a 'truly' socialist regime?

The existence of a democratic mandate for land reform and ending the war was never in doubt, so the appeal to democracy here rings hollow. However, since we're already talking about this, let me just quote Engels here:

A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.

- https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

A revolution whose program ends with a constitution and an elected assembly isn't a socialist revolution; it's a bourgeois revolution, which is fundamentally flawed for the same reason all bourgeois revolutions are fundamentally flawed. To somewhat repeat myself, the existence of a democratic mandate for bread (or rice depending on where you live), land and liberty is never seriously in doubt, so a revolutionary government doesn't need a bunch of men in a room to tell it to provide these things in the same way it doesn't need one to tell it to collect taxes and police cities. I could say a lot more about this, but let's not.

The main reason why the war continued was that the Entente threatened to revoke aid to Russia if it pulled out of the war, which would have led to a worsening economic situation in a period when economic hardship was literally what toppled the Tsarist regime.

I almost wrote a rebuttal of this argument, but it's frankly irrelevant to the wider point. No matter the reason, the Provisional Government kept Russians (and other peoples comprising the Russian Empire) in the war against their will. In the end it took a coup by the Bolsheviks to get the things the working class was revolting for.

Again, because the provisional government's purpose was to organize elections.

And win the war, don't forget that one. That's the whole reason the elections took as long as they did.

the accusations of the Bolsheviks and their defenders would have been precisely that they were acting without a democratic mandate from the workers,

I mean, I'm not convinced but sure? Nobody would've needed to consider the Bolsheviks' opinions if the clowns running the provisional government had been running a tighter ship.

... yet a 'communist' government which does nothing but create bureaucratized oligarchy and is indistinguishable from a fascist government is 'absolutely fair' to call communist?

No offense, but yeah no you have to be kidding here. Soviet rule under Lenin and Stalin was what turned Russia into a developed country. Virtually every indicator of a modern (for the time period) quality of life exploded. The idea that they did "nothing but create bureaucratized oligarchy" is simply not a serious historical position, and if you seriously believe that you should get back to studying. This is a position not worth debating.

... the long-time SR politician who is despised and slandered to this day by tankie bootlickers?

See above. Kerensky was and remains despised by a lot more than tankie bootlickers for being an incompetent, self-important twat—in fact I'm surprised there's anyone who doesn't despise him. Either way he kept Russia in the war for four crucial months, so he deserves to be despised for that alone. Bolsheviks don't take power without a great idiot like Kerensky at the helm.

I guess his involvement long before socialism was victorious in the Russian Empire doesn't qualify him as a true believer, unlike the Great Genius Stalin?

I never said he wasn't a true believer. I don't know if he was, and frankly don't care too much. Whatever principles he might've had only excuse his conduct as much as Stalin's do his—which is to say not at all.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social [S] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Except for the war, which they evidently never intended to put to a democratic vote (since they intended to only hold them after the war was won).

What the ever-loving fuck are you talking about?

The elections were held in 1917. The elections were being held as the Bolsheviks committed their coup.

In the end it took a coup by the Bolsheviks to get the things the working class was revolting for.

Civil war, the destruction of both 'bourgeois' democracy and the workers' Soviets, and mass starvation???

To somewhat repeat myself, the existence of a democratic mandate for bread (or rice depending on where you live), land and liberty is never seriously in doubt, so a revolutionary government doesn’t need a bunch of men in a room to tell it to provide these things in the same way it doesn’t need one to tell it to collect taxes and police cities. I could say a lot more about this, but let’s not.

Are you fucking stupid?

This is the most idiotic, juvenile conception of governance I've seen, and I've seen a lot of really bad fucking takes on here. "Just do it, how hard could it be?" Yes, people want bread and peace, but how you deliver both matters (as seen by Brest-Litovsk immediately igniting a fucking civil war), and that's exactly fucking why governance is so fucking difficult; not only that, but delivering either is not guaranteed equally by every course of action, and god fucking help you if you waste resources autocratically deciding on a course of action that doesn't end up panning out. Government doesn't just say "We are now making 100 bread for the people, starvation will now end", this isn't a fucking video game.

Not only that, but it is immensely fascist in its conception of the will of the people able to expressed by Very Attuned Individuals who work without any input other than the notion of 'common sense' of doing 'what the people want'.

You might as well fucking quote the Doctrine of Fascism. Jesus fucking Christ, man.

And win the war, don’t forget that one. That’s the whole reason the elections took as long as they did.

"There's no way that a brand new government making an electoral system that radically departs from the previous one across the largest country on earth at the time with 1917 technology could have decided that implementing polling stations would have taken a whole seven months!"

Jesus fucking Christ.

No offense, but yeah no you have to be kidding here. Soviet rule under Lenin and Stalin was what turned Russia into a developed country. Virtually every indicator of a modern (for the time period) quality of life exploded.

Would you like to compare the 'explosion' of those indicators to other countries of the period of like low developmental status? Go ahead.

I never said he wasn’t a true believer. I don’t know if he was, and frankly don’t care too much. Whatever principles he might’ve had only excuse his conduct as much as Stalin’s do his—which is to say not at all.

You literally fucking said that it wasn't fair to say Stalin wasn't a communist, because he was a true believer, despite all the fascist fucking shit he got up to, but simultaneously say Kerensky doesn't deserve to be called even socialist-leaning, regardless of whether he was a true believer.

The idea that they did “nothing but create bureaucratized oligarchy” is simply not a serious historical position, and if you seriously believe that you should get back to studying. This is a position not worth debating.

So "It's okay if it's a fascist government which implements bureaucratized oligarchy if the economy improves"?

Are you fucking serious?

Would you like to raise your right arm for a "Heil Hitler" next? Or say Mussolini made the trains run on time? Jesus fucking Christ.

This is an absolutely horrific and outright fascist position you're taking. I did not expect this even when this started with a defense of Stalin as a true believer.

parent