207
Cowbee enters the chat (crazypeople.online)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 5 months ago (18 children)

From the provisional government that was formed after the February revolution that took power from the Tzar and started organizing elections, which the Bolshevik lost and then decided to take power by force.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    The provisional government was a liberal, pro-capitalist government. The counter-revolutionary thing to do would be to protect the provisional government. Further, it was not a black and white case of the Bolsheviks losing elections, the various parties of the time formed coalitions, which legitimized the Bolshevik coalition, as well as the peasant elections that you're ignoring.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    Again more historical inaccuracies. The provisional government was a hodgepot of different ideas and it was very clear from the start that the rural socialist party would win the proposed election (as they did). These and somewhat allied anarchist thinkers proposed ideas that went well beyond the state-capitalism that the Bolshevik endorsed, so ursurping the provisional government and taking power in the november revolution by force was clearly counter-revolutionary. Coalitions that happened after that are sham when everyone just saw what happens when you stand in the way of how the Bolshevik take power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Nope, no historical inaccuracies. You're referring to the Right-SRs, who had recently split from the Left-SRs. The rural socialists banded together with the Bolsheviks in a coalition. You're also ignoring that the workers and peasants already saw the provisional government as illegitimate, backing the Soviets. The anarchists may have had what they believed were good ideas, but the proletariat and peasantry largely disagreed and agreed with the socialists, who coalesced around the Bolsheviks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    Again more historical inaccuracies. For example the "Soviets" back then were not the Bolshevik, even if they later falsely claimed to represent them and usurped the term.

    You really need lay off on the fan-fiction and self-serving election reports literally written by Lenin himself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    I never claimed Bolsheviks and Soviets were synonymous, only that both the soviet government and provisional government existed in a dual state, and that the Soviets stood opposed to the provisional government. The Soviet government did back the Bolsheviks, and eventually came to be entirely Bolshevik.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Again historical inacurracies. Yes obviously the Soviets opposed the provisional government. But they did not try to take it over as that would have invalidated the very idea they stood for.

    What happened after the November revolution is no indication of how the members of the Soviets really felt as the Bolshevik started purging people that disagred with them quite heavily.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Why would the Soviets overthrowing the capitalist government "invalidate the very idea they stood for?" The Soviets stood for worker and peasant power. They succeeded in establishing that very concept and turning it into concrete political reality. As for the idea of the Bolsheviks "purging people," you are referring to the ensuing Civil War, where the workers and peasants joined the Bolsheviks and the Red Army. Even anarchists largely joined the Red Army to fight off the Whites.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    More historical inaccuracies. The first people the Bolshevik purged were people that naively thought they were on the same side.

    And no, the original Soviets wanted to create self-administered communities and work-places. Taking over centralized state power makes no sense with that goal in mind.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Nothing I have said is historically inaccurate. The Bolsheviks opposed cadets, mensheviks, and other groups that wished to retain the Tsar's colonies, wanted to prolong the war, and opposed Soviet power. The Soviets were a connected system, itself a state. Overthrowing the provisional government and solidifying the Soviet state as the only state does not oppose their purpose in the slightest, and it was a decision democratically approved.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    More fan-fiction and post-hoc justifications. You seriously need to read some historically accurate accounts of what happened at the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    I have read historically accurate accounts, though you define historical accuracy by it not being written by anyone succeeding. I've also asked for sources, and you haven't brought any beyond linking the anarchist library.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    History written by the winners is ok according to you as long as you agree with it. That is really funny.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago*

    Surely none of the losers of history have ever lost for good reason and stayed mad about it. Let's all renounce modern medicine and pledge loyalty to the Khmer Rouge, because they too were crushed by the awful communists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Nah, history is written by both winners and losers. What's important is historical accuracy, and which class's perspective and outlook is being presented. Equating socialist historiography with bourgeois historiography is a false equivalence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent