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
[–] 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