History Memes

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

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

In what way is it generous?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] 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.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] 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?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] 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.